Spill baby spill, slippery politics

Does anyone believe that the relief wells (targeted for August) will stop the leak once they are completed?

Or will they simply reduce the leakage back down to some number of barrels/day (causing people to feel relieved even though the leak is still horrendous)?

I believe, I do.
I believe it's true.
I believe exactly
what they tell me to.

Well I looked carefully at your earlier link providing the so-called scientific comparison between electric and internal combustion vehicles. I believe the problem here is your apparent lack of understanding of the engineering and scientific principles involved, and an excess of credulity on your part for what was a very deceptive comparison.

The author did some very tricky things with the numbers. Here are merely the most obvious distortions;
1. He compared the performance of a real IC vehicle (an Accura) with that of an imaginary electric vehicle of much lower weight, carrying capacity and fewer energy consuming accessories.
2. He assigned a 14% energy loss for the extraction, transport and refining of the gasoline used in the Accura, but no energy loss whatever for the extraction, transport and refining of the fuel used to generate the electrical power (about 70% of our electrical power is generated from domestic coal and natural gas).

With these corrections applied his claimed 69 mpg equivalent for the electrical car becomes about 40 mpg. This is about the same as can be achieved with a modern aluminum block deisel. It is also equivalent to it in terms of economic operating cost. (A not insignificant fact, given that the economic cost is a reliable indicator of real efficiency).

Finding something on the web is not the same thing as discovering the truth. Some thinking, understanding and discretion is also required. I realize these things often require more time and effort than a quick web search of partisan sources. However, the world is a tough place.

The most obvious distortions are yours georgeob1.
The EV1 was not an "imaginary vehicle". While it was limited in production, it was clearly a production vehicle and was not imaginary.

You are really willing to argue that the 39% efficiency for electrical energy doesn't include costs of extraction, transport and refining without any evidence?

You are wrong on both points.

1. The electric vehicle under comparison was not comparable in terms of carrying capacity and accerssories, just as I stated.
2. 39% is a fairly high end assessment of the thermodynamic efficiency of the Rankine cycle of a modern steam plant (coal fired) with superheat and regeneration. In fact the turbogenerator will create additional losses, so for this source my estimate was very generous. A modern compound cycle gas turbine plant with a secondary boiler will be only slightly less efficient than the steam plant. The 39% estimate is, in both cases a realistic high-end efficiency for both electrical powerplants. It most certainly does not account for the energy expended in extracting the coal or gas; processing it; and transporting the product to the generating plant.

This is elementary engineering stuff.

Give us some advanced stuff George. We love being astounded.

Maybe not even that good, George. At the time I was working in a coal fire power plant (Four Corners Power Plant in Fruitland, NM) we were told that roughly 1/3 of the actual generator output was used in coal handling, pollution control, and the various (many) fans and pumps necessary for operation. I'm not at all sure that 39% includes these parasitic losses. That is, electric energy out of the generators is no way the same as energy leaving the plant site.

You are probably correct. The maximum advertised efficiency of a modern Rankine cycle steam plant with superheat and regeneration is about 38%. That, of course, does not include the energy losses associated with the conversion of mechanical energy to electrical through the turbogenerator. In addition the self-powered fuel handling and pollution limiting features of today's plants are, as you stated, additional parasitic losses that will further degrade the overall efficiency of the process.

The next false implication in all this is the assumption that "renewable" sources of electrical power are 100% efficient. This, of course ignores the energy (and cost) that goes in to constructing and operating wind turbines and solar panels. The capital costs (alone) of both sources, per KW-Hr actually generated, are far higher than coal, gas or even nuclear plants. Interestingly their operating costs are also slightly higher. Those costs ultimately involve energy.

And is the coal a domestic resource, or is it shipped from Saudi Arabia?

Assuming you mean in America, it's a domestic resource. If you mean in China, it seems to come from Australia - when they can make it over the Great Barrier Reef.

In the meantime...

State closes more fishing areas around Lake Pontchartrain due to Gulf oil spill

That is funny george. You said it was an imaginary car. Now you say it wasn't close in capacity and accessories.

Which accessories did the 1995 Accura TL have standard that the EV1 didn't?
I'm just curious since you seem to be speaking from authority.

AP - A top Texas official said Monday that tar balls from the Gulf oil spill have been found on state beaches, marking the first known evidence that gushing crude from the Deepwater Horizon well has now reached all the Gulf states.

Knew it was bound to happen.

I just saw that, edgar. Galveston Island and Port Bolivar. Bummer. The "minor" storms in the Gulf are mucking things up.

It appears that you are trying awfully hard to salvage something - anything at all - from your rather nasty, accusatory and laughably incorrect post above.

I checked on the ill-fated EV1. It had a low capacity, time (i.e. battery regulated )HVAC system. That means a "sort of" air conditioning system.

The basic point here is that the comparison posited in Phoebe's site, on which Cyclo based his absurd claim that electric vehicles are significantly more economical than similar ICE powered vehicles, was and is false and deceptive. It exaggerated the comparison electric vehicle MPG equivalent by at least one-third.

Really? So it has an AC system but you are just going to argue that because it is limited by the battery it isn't the same?

What accessories does the Acura TL have that the EV1 doesn't have? It appears the correct answer is NONE. No one is arguing that they are the same in terms of distance they can travel. The discussion is about energy cost per mile traveled. By suddenly wanting to deal with travel BEYOND what the power system can do, you are no longer making a valid comparison. The Acura TL has a gasoline engine regulated HVAC system george. One could as well argue in your stupid fashion that the EV1 is better equipped since it doesn't require gasoline at all for it's HVAC to run.

No, I am suggesting that the total power devoted to accessories in the EV1 is almost certainly far less than that in the Accura. The descriptive material I found described a "part time" HVAC system designed to limit peak battery discharge rates. Do you dispute this?

Yes and in those terms the performance of the EV1 was greatly distorted by the omissions and errors that I noted - all just as I wrote.

The comparison that is at the heart of this dispute, was seriously distorted from the truth. Moreover Cyclo used it repeatedly to justify truly irrational and unreasonable assertions that electric powered vehicles are categorically more efficient than those with internal combustion engines. The truth is that while electrical vehicles do indeed offer some benefits, they are not generally more efficient than comparable vehicles powered by modern deisel engines.

Furthermore the widespread use of electrically powered vehicles is virtually prohibited by our current lack of sufficient electrical power generation capacity and a sufficiently robust and flexible transmission system needed to support new sources of power and new demands for it. Many folks are in the grip of unrealistic fantasies in these matters. Right now we don't have any feasible alternatives to the major share of our capacity provided by coal fired power plants, apart from natural gas and nuclear.

Hybrid vehicles make sense because their IC engines can be optimized for the RPM and torque required to drive the constant speed generator, with large gains in efficiency - more than enough to make up for the added losses in the electrical to mechanical conversions. However, even these are limited by battery performance and a modern aluminum block deisel can equal them in performance - including fuel economy.

If we are serious about reducing our dependency on imported petroleum, we will adopt hybrid vehicles with engines powered by compressed natural gas. Even here we will need added electrical power generation capacity. In terms of both cost and overall environmental impact the best choice, by far, for this is nuclear.

You're simply wrong about this. And the proof is in the fact that I can power an electric engine off of a Solar panel at somewhere around 80-85% efficiency. You'll never get that out of a diesel engine.

You can talk all you want to about the impracticality of such a design; it doesn't matter. That's simply denial on your part of the physics involved. The fact is that electric energy can be produced without the downsides you mention (losses using modern coal and gas generation techniques). Therefore, it is absolutely silly to blame the engine for the fact that our fuel generation sources are inefficient.

Still, after all this time and many posts, you have not spoken at all as to the energy necessary to extract and process oil into gasoline. You assume it is nothing, that the gasoline magically gets into the car. If this isn't true, then Please, explain how you calculate that energy cost.

Cycloptichorn

Your basic error Cyclo is that you are talking aboutYOUR car.

The argument is really about ALL cars, buses, ships, etcAND with a fuel that has a very large storage capacity. You would need to build an equal redundancy into an electrical system.

Even with gas shortages rationing can be introduced to keep essential services going. With electricity an outage is a blackout. A standstill and in a short time anarchy. Your solar panels are toys. Status symbols. Conversation pieces.

The most efficient sysyem for YOUR car is chickshit, I think, but there is not enough of that to power the US economy and social system.

Then you do agree that electric motors are more efficient than combustion engines? In the near future there will be storage batteries that will run a car 200 mi which is sufficent for most people.