Spill baby spill, slippery politics

@roger,

roger wrote:

Pointing out your omissions is being a jerk, jerk?

You didn't have any substantial criticism of my position - I already pointed out that we should be building Nuke plants to deal with these issues, not more windmills; and yeah, you are kind of being a jerk. You haven't really thought out a position in this discussion at all, but are sniping away at me, because... ?

At the end of the day, no matter what you guys contend, it is a proven fact that electric engines are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. This isn't even a matter of debate. You are trying to play a cute game of saying that it's more pollution-generating to make the electricity and transmit it to the car, than it is to pump oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, ship it to the US, refine it, ship it to your gas station, and then put it in the car. But that's ridiculous on it's face. I've shown you several different ways that this argument is incorrect.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, it isn't. You aren't counting the energy necessary to transport and refine the oil into gasoline, then transport it again to the delivery station. How do you account for this energy loss when calculating the efficiency of your ICE?

You are counting every step of the process for electric engines, but pretending that gasoline magically appears from nowhere in one's fuel tank.

Cycloptichorn

And you aren't counting the energy necessary to extract and transport the fuel for the electrical power generating station. Nor are you accounting for the significant energy losses associated with transforming the chemical energy in the fuel to mechanical and then to electrical energy before it is stored in the vehicle battery.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

At the end of the day, no matter what you guys contend, it is a proven fact that electric engines are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. This isn't even a matter of debate. You are trying to play a cute game of saying that it's more pollution-generating to make the electricity and transmit it to the car, than it is to pump oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, ship it to the US, refine it, ship it to your gas station, and then put it in the car. But that's ridiculous on it's face. I've shown you several different ways that this argument is incorrect.

Cycloptichorn

Despite your repeated protests, you have not done this. Whatever standards of accounting you apply for energy losses and or pollution in the fuel/energy cycle for a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, must also be applied to the process by which the electrical energy (fuel) for your postulated electrically powered vehicle. Today about 70% of our electrical energy is generated by burning either coal or natural gas. If, for purposes of discussion you imagine that the electrical power is generated in a modern gas fired plant, then recognize the following transformations that occur in the process;
1. Stored chemical energy in the fuel is converted to mechanical energy in the gas turbine,
2. The mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy in the generator.
3. The electrical energy is converted into mechanical energy in the vehicle through its motor.

Now imagine a vehicle with an IC engine powered bu compressed natural gas. Both involve essentially the same fuel cycle for extracting and delivering the gas fuel.
1. Stored chemical energy in the fuel is converted to mechanical energy by the IC engine. That's it. Done ! No more losses.

The extra energy conversions in the electrical power chain involve significant losses that simply don't occur with the IC engine.

0 Replies

Which ICE are you guys talking about, the one in the Hummer or the one in the Honda. Who's driving, the asshole who speeds out of every stop, or grandma who never breaks 30mph. Where arethey driving, 4 mph through Chicago during rush hour, or 55 non stop on the freeway? What state of repair is their engine in?

I'd like to see a little more detail, especially around the efficiencies in everyday real world conditions. And then do it again when the cars are 5, 10, 15 years old.

I'm fairly certain electric comes out ahead.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Let me be clear. A compressed gas fueled IC engine in a vehicle will deliver higher efficiency in terms of the fuel burned by the prime mover (IC engine or gas turbogenerator) than will an electric vehicle of the same power and weight.

The reason is the fewer energy conversions involved in the process.

An electric vehicle powered by electricity produced by magic will deliver higher efficiency than an IC engine powered vehicle powered by real fuel. If however the IC engine is also fueled by magic .....

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Let me be clear. A compressed gas fueled IC engine in a vehicle will deliver higher efficiency in terms of the fuel burned by the prime mover (IC engine or gas turbogenerator) than will an electric vehicle of the same power and weight.

The reason is the fewer energy conversions involved in the process.

You're simply wrong. Solar panels will charge the battery directly with no mechanical conversions. The very fact that a method of doing this exists disproves your point completely.

I would be willing to bet that nuclear produced electricity is cheaper and more efficient than gasoline as well.

You still have not determined what method you use for calculating the amount of energy it takes to produce and transport the fuel for your ICE engine. You have to factor that into the efficiency cost, and for the fourth post in a row you simply have failed to address it in any meaningful way.

Go back and read the link I posted on the last page. Even when you account for energy lost due to transmission and energy conversion, electric engines STILL outperform IC engines by a considerable degree.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Let me be clear. A compressed gas fueled IC engine in a vehicle will deliver higher efficiency in terms of the fuel burned by the prime mover (IC engine or gas turbogenerator) than will an electric vehicle of the same power and weight.

The reason is the fewer energy conversions involved in the process.

You're simply wrong. Solar panels will charge the battery directly with no mechanical conversions. The very fact that a method of doing this exists disproves your point completely.

You apparently didn't read what I wrote. In order to make a meaningful compariso one must equalize everything but the factors under comparison ... just as I did.

In contrast you now postulate a solar powered source of electrical power, which obviates any direct comparison. Solar power is VERY expensive; displaces relatively huge land areas for generation and, like wind power requires extensive new transmission links that don't presently exist. More to the point is the fact that the solar generating capacity, required to make such a vehicle a viable prospect, simply doesn't exist and is economically infeasible.

You have argued that in terms of thermodynamic or mechanical efficiency an electrically powered vehicle, including the efficiency associated with extracting and transporting the fuel that is the ultimate source of the energy consumed, is more efficient than any comparable IC engine. This is simply false. Moreover even with all your shouting it remains false.

[/quote]

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Nobody has to shout anything, George. You have offered no evidence that what you posit is true. You assert that the various phase changes of energy make electric engines so inefficient that they are less so than IC engines; however, as the post I linked to on the other page showed, you are still incorrect.

From 1 million BTUs of energy in, a comparable electric engine will get about twice the miles than an automobile will... this is in no small part because the actual efficiency, not counting the costs of energy transmission, of an electric engine is twice to three times that an IC one.

Over time our electric generation techniques and abilities will do nothing but rise. It's pretty clear that the vehicles of the future - and increasingly of today - are electric in nature, and it will be a better thing for our environment when this is the case.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

What difference does it make how cheap or efficient these systems are. The more efficient you get them to be the dafter your behaviour will become.

It's a psychological problem. If energy was got down to 50% of its cost now you silly utilitarians wouldn't have time to go to bed. You would have to be up and doing to use it to show off with. Showing off expands to utilise the facility for doing it as Mr Parkinson might have said.

That's why pride is top of the sins chart. Gluttony and lust are limited biologically so are pretty harmless although one can eat Himalayan artichokes lightly grilled in parrot fat in restaurants where the waiters have gold buttons on their waistcoats and the Maitre d'Hotel has a PhD in Behavioural Psychology. And there's the $1,ooo whore assuming no inflation since I first heard of such madness . Pride has no limits beyond exhaustion and collapse and medications can be used to push back that limit.

One only needs look at the wardrobes of the well-to-do. The world cup footballers never wear the same kit twice.

At Royal Ascot it got ridiculous. There was a betting market on what colour the Queen, bless her, would wear on each day. The inside info was that three different sets of kit were laid out for her on each of the five days so she could have a choice depending, presumably, on how she was feeling. And she sets the tone around here.

One might just as well talk about the efficiency of poodle pampering. That's not economic efficiency. It's silly sodderey.

How about reducing the population? Get them Saudis back to $4 a barrel and then see how good electric engines are. De fund the terrorists as well which was what BP was trying to do.

0 Replies

Quote:

And now, unveil'd, the toilet stands display'd,
Each silver vase in mystic order laid.
First, robed in white, the nymph intent adores,
With head uncover'd, the cosmetic powers.
125 A heav'nly image in the glass appears;
To that she bends, to that her eyes she rears.
Th' inferior priestess, at her altar's side,
Trembling begins the sacred rites of Pride.
Unnumber'd treasures ope at once, and here
130 The various off'rings of the world appear;
From each she nicely culls with curious toil,
And decks the goddess with the glitt'ring spoil.
This casket India's glowing gems unlocks,
And all Arabia breathes from yonder box.
135 The tortoise here and elephant unite,
Transform'd to combs, the speckled, and the white.
Here files of pins extend their shining rows,
Puffs, powders, patches, bibles, billet-doux.
Now awful beauty puts on all its arms;
140 The Fair each moment rises in her charms,
Repairs her smiles, awakens every grace,
And calls forth all the wonders of her face;
Sees by degrees a purer blush arise,
And keener lightnings quicken in her eyes.
145 The busy Sylphs surround their darling care,
These set the head, and those divide the hair,
Some fold the sleeve, whilst others plait the gown;
And Betty's prais'd for labours not her own.

The Rape of the Lock. Alexander Pope.

But Belinda was an upper-class doxie. Now there's millions.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You are ignoring the energy lost in generating the electrical power consumed by the motor driving your electrical vehicle. Such power isn't found in nature: it is generated usually through the action of a heat engine which itself consumes fossil fuel.

If you posit the use of magic electrical power that comes from as yet non-existant large-scale wind or solar systems, then you must count the energy expended in creating and operating those systems. They are not heat engines in the strict sense and their supply is ubiquitous - suggesting an unlimited source. The fact is they are very capital intensive, expensive in terms of materials and cost of manufacture, and they displace a great deal of land. Today they constitute less than 2% of our generating capability - and that fraction is rising only very slowly. While advocates seek to conceal their high cost through taxes on fossil fuel sources that subsidize them, they will inexorably raise the cost of energy for everyone, creating huge dislogations in the world economy if they become widely used - which isn't likely.

You have indicated nuclear power as an alternative. I agree with that. It is cheaper and far less polluting than either coal or gas, and with alternate reactor designs and fuel reprocessing we have available fuel for many centuries. However it too involves cost and energy that are consumed in the generation of electric power, and they too should be included in any comparison. The link you cited didn't do that.

When the first generation of Priuses start needing (very expensive) replacement battereies I think we will see a change in their market appeal. In fact modern light weight deisel engines do very well in competing with hybrid vehicles even in urban settings.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

When the first generation of Priuses start needing (very expensive) replacement battereies I think we will see a change in their market appeal. In fact modern light weight deisel engines do very well in competing with hybrid vehicles even in urban settings.

The first-gen Prius has been in use for over 14 years now, and to my knowledge there is no huge problem with their replacement batteries. So I think this is a little bit of incorrect speculation on your part. The Prius is still one of the top-selling cars out there.

Quote:

However it too involves cost and energy that are consumed in the generation of electric power, and they too should be included in any comparison. The link you cited didn't do that.

Yes, they did. You need to read more carefully. This is why only 1/3rd of the BTUs are left after energy generation, as opposed to 95% for oil and gasoline. The electric engine is still far more efficient in the end.

You still haven't given any clue what metrics you use to quantify the energy expended in getting oil out of the ground, transporting it, and refining it; I'm specifically asking you to do so now. How could you possibly have an effective comparison, when half the equation is unquantifiable?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"I'm absolutely furious," said Taylor. "If the president of the United States can't find somebody who can do this job, then let me do it."

Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi blasts Obama's response to the oil spill as 'incompetent':

“It is criminal what is going on. This doesn’t have to happen, and it is not like I said ‘go fix it.’ I gave them a detailed plan how to do this two weeks ago. They are not doing any of it.”

Taylor’s plan, like the state’s, called for a multilayered response that relied heavily on skimmers to collect oil south of the barrier islands, at the island passes and within the Mississippi Sound.

“I’m absolutely furious,” said Taylor. “If the president of the United States can’t find somebody who can do this job, then let me do it.”

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Quote:

Taylor’s plan, like the state’s, called for a multilayered response that relied heavily on skimmers to collect oil south of the barrier islands, at the island passes and within the Mississippi Sound.

That's the plan most of us thought of first. We have all seen our Mums skimming the scum off the boiling jam. It's empty rhetoric to get on telly with.

It's how to do it. Who signs the cheques in Mr Taylor's plan? Who can he give orders to? Is the Appropriations Committee part of his plan? Multilayering might be the major problem.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There's more on his official webpage. I also recall a congressman from Alabama who spoke during the hearings with Hayward, who had a similar grievance. He said he'd sent a detailed plan to both BP and the administration on a particular way to protect the marshes, but after an entire month, he'd had no response from either. He was more frustrated than furious, although he didn't come across as happy at all, since neither side seemed to know who was in charge.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

We have massive amounts of it, it's easy to work with.

Shouldn't you save it for your descendents Cyclo. Husband it so to speak. Emptying the tanks and saddling them in debts hardly shows your tender loving care. And leaving them to decommission the nuclear plants.

Isn't splurging now anti-evolutionary? Isn't each succeeding generation supposed to be handing an advantageous legacy. Otherwise extinction is on the cards.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The answer to the fact that CA among many places "no longer has enough water to go around" is, of course, population control.

Watch out, because major corporations are seizing water sources around the world. In some places, they have even set up armed guards to prevent local citizens from accessing the lakes they have used for centuries.

0 Replies

This is the personal testimony from a New Orleans native. The testimony is from an email she sent to her good friend who runs a general store/restaurant/bed-and-breakfast in the small MA town of Ashfield, hence the references to Elmer's and Ashfield. It was taken from the Elmer's store news letter:

The smell of oil was strong in the air the last two days and there is a grit in the air that just makes everything dirty. We are waiting to see if the tropical storm will come and mess us over even more. No one wants to even talk about it. You would think everyone would be abuzz but, no. Whenever the topic comes up, after a few words about volume and shrimp, the room goes quiet. It's just too big and we are too helpless.

In the bathroom this morning, while doing my ablutions, I had a vision of Ashfield and I wished I was there. I could smell it. I think it was just my reference for a clean place with lots of room for the kids to play. I want space and green trees and no threat of hurricane, oil or drunk drivers. It is Sunday and I wanted to come to Elmer’s and just hang out and then go home and watch the chickens. I had a full sense memory of a beautiful summer day in our house in Ashfield. It was the first time that has happened so strongly.

I love New Orleans but this oil thing has been the last straw for me. We are now sitting here waiting like sitting ducks for the world to collapse around us, pretending it will all go away.

This is sounding pretty glum. I'm not falling into a deep depression or anything. This is what is going on beneath the surface. I think it is what is going on with everyone. All this work to come back, all the pride in our home and resilience to adversity and then this. All we want is to hang out and watch football and go to a parade. I had a bunch of people over for the US (World Cup) game yesterday, but there was that smell in the air. That's whey no one can talk about it. It is the smell of defeat.

0 Replies

PBS continues to report on their frustration in getting access to the Federal reponse to the Gulf oil spill. Full story at the link.

Quote:

But there’s one roadblock that we encountered that mystified us — and, we understand, many other journalists. It has been virtually impossible to get any information about the federal mobile medical unit in the fishing town of Venice, La. The glorified double-wide trailer sits on a spit of newly graveled land known to some as the “BP compound.” Ringed with barbed wire-topped chain link fencing, it’s tightly restricted by police and private security guards.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set up the facility on May 31. According to a press release, the medical unit is staffed by “a medical team from the HHS National Disaster Medical System — a doctor, two nurses, two emergency medical technician paramedics (EMT-P) and a pharmacist.”

For over two weeks, my NewsHour colleagues and I reached out to media contacts at HHS, the U.S. Coast Guard and everyone listed as a possible media contact for BP, in an attempt to visit the unit and get a general sense of how many people were being treated there , who they were and what illnesses they had. We got nowhere. It was either “access denied,” or no response at all. It was something that none of us had ever encountered while covering a disaster. We’re usually at some point provided access to the health services being offered by the federal government.

We tried the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals who told us to talk to HHS. HHS said they couldn’t provide us access and said they would get back to us about our questions.

We reached out to local parish officials, who told us to talk to Unified Command Center Operations. Unified Command Center Operations told us to talk to HHS… noticing a pattern here?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/access-hard-to-come-by-in-reporting-on-health-in-the-gulf.html

0 Replies

Quote:

LONDON/DUBAI (Reuters) – Oil major BP Plc is seeking a strategic investor to secure its independence in the face of any takeover attempts as it struggles with a devastating oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, newspapers said on Sunday.

Britain's Sunday Times said the company's advisers were trying to drum up interest among rival oil groups and sovereign wealth funds to take a stake of between 5 and 10 percent in the company at a cost of up to 6 billion pounds ($9.1 billion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100704/ts_nm/us_bp_new_investors

so much for the claims that BP will have no trouble surviving this disaster caused by them. I will be very suprised if BP can offer investors enough to entice someone to come in and save them from being eaten. Cetainly BP can shrink itself by selling assets, they have a lot of stuff people want to buy.

0 Replies

Spill baby spill, slippery politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know