Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I read that "Dust-to-Dust" study, and we've discussed it in other threads (maybe even this one). It is full of holes and there are a few sites that debunk some of that research groups points.

It does need to be investigated, just using a more scientific and controlled approach.

I agree with that observation. We should not relegate to the junk heap anything simply because the initial development might make it uneconomic for a while. Interesting that GM, Ford, and other companies chose not to invest as much into the design as Toyota, because they saw too much up front cost and no assurance they would recover the cost, so they played it too conservatively, and Toyota reaps the rewards of Prius now, however, it still remains to be seen if the hybrids will ever become a prolific design to be used for alot more models. Again, it should be observed that largely private enterprise perfected the hybrid design to where it stands today, not government programs.

I agree with that observation. We should not relegate to the junk heap anything simply because the initial development might make it uneconomic for a while. Interesting that GM, Ford, and other companies chose not to invest as much into the design as Toyota, because they saw too much up front cost and no assurance they would recover the cost, so they played it too conservatively, and Toyota reaps the rewards of Prius now, however, it still remains to be seen if the hybrids will ever become a prolific design to be used for alot more models. Again, it should be observed that largely private enterprise perfected the hybrid design to where it stands today, not government programs.

But let's keep in mind that it was also private enterprise that stole the electric car from all of those who wanted it and were willing to forego warrenties/parts to have it.

Private enterprise needs some government regulation to stay honest.

And a real impressive test of these private enterprises will be if they ever decide to come out with plug in electric hybrid designs. I will be first in line for one of those.

maporsche wrote:

But let's keep in mind that it was also private enterprise that stole the electric car from all of those who wanted it and were willing to forego warrenties/parts to have it.

Private enterprise needs some government regulation to stay honest.

And a real impressive test of these private enterprises will be if they ever decide to come out with plug in electric hybrid designs. I will be first in line for one of those.

Who stole what? I'm not aware that anyone stole anything. There are electric cars you can buy now if you want one. They are not selling because they are so far not very practical to drive except a few blocks or a few miles, but don't work very well for all purpose driving all over the place, or at high speeds, without fear of the batteries going dead. Don't get me wrong, I think they have potential, especially if better batteries are developed, and I think we are on the verge of that.

I don't know much about the various electric cars, but I have seen some on ebay. You can go to ebay motors and search for electric cars and there will be used ones and maybe even new ones of various types, and here are a couple of links to manufacturers. There may be more, and I don't know if the links provided are the main ones or the best ones.

http://www.gemcar.com/
http://www.zapworld.com/

At any rate, rest assured that no company has the power to stop a product if it is viable. If there is a sufficient market for any kind of electric car, the market would explode and everybody and his brother would be starting companies, designing various makes and models, and getting rich doing it.

One important point about all of this. Gasoline cost is still fairly cheap for most families budgets, in comparison with everything else. For example, I have looked into buying a very efficient small car for driving around town or for short distances, but when you put the pencil to it, the economic advantage is not there after you add the extra investment, the insurance cost and everything else associated with an extra vehicle. I would have to consider such a vehicle as an extra vehicle, because I would still need my standard car to travel across country or for interstate driving just a hundred miles from here. The electric car has limited use, so until it can totally replace my standard car, it is nothing more than a rich man's luxury. If gasoline rises alot more in price, perhaps to $5 per gallon, then another car begins to become more viable in terms of possibly saving money. Right now, the sales of highly efficient street legal small gasoline powered scooters are booming, but even in with those vehicles, I have talked to people that say they might just break even with fuel savings vs the cost of owning one after a year or two.

I don't know much about the various electric cars, but I have seen some on ebay. You can go to ebay motors and search for electric cars and there will be used ones and maybe even new ones of various types, and here are a couple of links to manufacturers. There may be more, and I don't know if the links provided are the main ones or the best ones.

http://www.gemcar.com/
http://www.zapworld.com/

At any rate, rest assured that no company has the power to stop a product if it is viable. If there is a sufficient market for any kind of electric car, the market would explode and everybody and his brother would be starting companies, designing various makes and models, and getting rich doing it.

Since our electricaL power is produced 52% by coal; 20% by nuclear reactors; 16% by natural gas; 6% by hydroelectrical dams; and 6% by everythng else - the use of plug-in electrical cars would, in effect substitute those fuels for gasoline. Moreover the associated power transformation chain for electrical vehicles (thermal to mechanical, to electrical, and back to mechanical) involves two extra tranformations, each associated with substantial power losses. As a result, I suspect more net fuel consumption might be required to power them.

Since our electricaL power is produced 52% by coal; 20% by nuclear reactors; 16% by natural gas; 6% by hydroelectrical dams; and 6% by everythng else - the use of plug-in electrical cars would, in effect substitute those fuels for gasoline. Moreover the associated power transformation chain for electrical vehicles (thermal to mechanical, to electrical, and back to mechanical) involves two extra tranformations, each associated with substantial power losses. As a result, I suspect more net fuel consumption might be required to power them.

Finally neither our existing power transmission grid or even our basic power generating capacity have the marginal capability over existing demand to accomodate such a large new requirement. Massive new investment in coal-burning or nuclear plants would be required, along with an associated huge increase in the capacity of the power distribution grid.

From the perspective of limiting airborne emissions this would work if the doubling of our power generation capacity were done with nuclear reactors. We have the nuclear fuel and the technology required to do it, but the cost would be great, and the political opposition to it likely insurmountable. Indeed, even the construction of new coal burning plants would have a tough going.

Since our electricaL power is produced 52% by coal; 20% by nuclear reactors; 16% by natural gas; 6% by hydroelectrical dams; and 6% by everythng else - the use of plug-in electrical cars would, in effect substitute those fuels for gasoline. Moreover the associated power transformation chain for electrical vehicles (thermal to mechanical, to electrical, and back to mechanical) involves two extra tranformations, each associated with substantial power losses. As a result, I suspect more net fuel consumption might be required to power the

Finally neither our existing power transmission grid or even our basic power generating capacity have the marginal capability over existing demand to accomodate such a large new requirement. Massive new investment in coal-burning or nuclear plants would be required, along with an associated huge increase in the capacity of the power distribution grid.

From the perspective of limiting airborne emissions this would work if the doubling of our power generation capacity were done with nuclear reactors. We have the nuclear fuel and the technology required to do it, but the cost would be great, and the political opposition to it likely insurmountable. Indeed, even the construction of new coal burning plants would have a tough going.

The government says that our power grid as it exists today can handle up to 180 million plug in hybrids. There are approximately 220 million cars in the US. So you're wrong there.

Okie, I really suggest you check out the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car". There is a market for these cars such as the GM EV1 and GM did kill it despite the thousands of sale offers for cars that were already in people's garages. GM had the power and they stopped it.

maporsche wrote:

The government says that our power grid as it exists today can handle up to 180 million plug in hybrids. There are approximately 220 million cars in the US. So you're wrong there.

I think you should do some more research on this point. The link you cited was not the government or any other authoritive source. Take a look at the Department of Energy Web sites and you will see that both our transmission & distribution networks and our power generating capacity are seriously underinvested. There is little redundancy or surge capacity in the grid and little marginal generation capacity remaining, and much of that is consists of very old plants. Most of the recent new capacity has been in the form of relatuively less efficient gas fired plants which, because of their relative simplicity, are used intermittently to meet peak daily demands.

The U.S. electric power infrastructure is a strategic national asset that is underutilized most of the time. With the proper changes in the operational paradigm, it could generate and deliver the necessary energy to fuel the majority of the U.S. light duty vehicle fleet. In doing so, it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve the economics of the electricity industry, and reduce the U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Two companion papers investigate the technical potential and economic impacts of using the existing idle capacity of the electric infrastructure in conjunction with the emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) technology to meet the majority of the daily energy needs of the U.S. LDV fleet.

For the United States as a whole, 84% of U.S. cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) could be supported by the existing infrastructure, although the local percentages vary by region.

This has a gasoline displacement potential of 6.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or 52% of the nation's oil imports

maporsche wrote:

Okie, I really suggest you check out the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car". There is a market for these cars such as the GM EV1 and GM did kill it despite the thousands of sale offers for cars that were already in people's garages. GM had the power and they stopped it.

I've heard of the movie but haven't seen it, but really have no interest in it because it is obviously nothing more than propaganda. Similar to all the other conspiracy theories where big oil or big cars bought the magic carburetor or some magic design by the mysterious inventor. Maybe the stories also have the inventors disappearing and so on. Such is nothing more than somebody's imagination going off the deep end. If there is a buck to be made with a new technology, rest assured the companies will be manufacturing it faster and faster just to keep up with sales. Also it is a free country and none of the technology is all that mysterious, it is being worked on by many people, and is fairly well known in terms of the different designs, so there are plenty of people and companies that would love to sell a practical electric car. I don't know the details of the GM cars, but it most assuredly had something to do with investment vs projected return, with the making of parts and warranties also a concern. I am guessing, but I don't have to see a movie to make a better guess than a propaganda movie.