On par with asking if replacing gas guzzlers with new vehicles is a net positive if you consider the resources required to build that new car.
Tuesday I asked a frequent commenter and staunch electric vehicle advocate whether he ever questioned the ethics of building an EV that can save one owner 400 gallons of gas per year while using enough batteries to build ten Prius-class hybrids that could save their owners a combined total of 1,600 gallons of gas per year. I then spent an hour in stunned silence as the critical importance of that question crystallized in my mind. I didn’t get a responsive answer from the commenter, but I did get one of those rare moments of clarity when everything suddenly falls into place.
For years the mainstream media, scientists, elected officials and promoters have written and spoken ad nauseum about how a new generation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, will liberate America from the tyranny of imported oil. The problem is the promises are based on flawed assumptions and utterly false. At their best, PHEVs and EVs are all sizzle and no steak when it comes to national energy independence. At their worst, they are deep cover saboteurs that will undermine America’s drive for energy independence while stridently claiming to be part of the solution.
Jägermeister is right on the spot on the “chicken/egg” aspect of all this. Comically though, electric cars were around first as far as being around in large numbers first. Only when gasoline was cheaply available was the ICE to displace electrics.
The real answer to the batteries issue is to skip batteries all together. The benefits of the developments in super and ultra capacitors will, if commercialized, skip all of the issues that exist at the moment and in all aspects.
I like the idea of hybrids as a general rule and perhaps should have said that at the start so that it did not seem like I was a “DIG/DRILL” nutter or something. However, hybrids are only a stopgap/real-world development platform. What they offer us is the ability to quickly switch to an EV setup ONLY when a suitable energy storage and release technology is available. At the moment, there is nothing. Super/Ultra Capacitors and perhaps the new crystalline Li-Ion battery technology will be the fit. NiMH and traditional Li-Ion are not.
I do like the idea of a turbine powered car that runs the engine at really high efficiency and then puts all that effort into electrics. You build the car with a “buffer” battery pack so that the turbine only has to run when current draw is really high or when the battery pack is close to full discharge. Doing this would allow for the power-train to be totally electric and then the complexity of the dual-drive power-train is then eliminated.
Properly designed, such a car could also be laid out so that when a better capacitor or battery system was available, the turbine and fuel tank could be removed and replaced with batteries/capacitors and a charging system.
57, jason..
HOW about a different DESIGN of power dam.
Rather then BUILD 1 GIANT monster that Affects a WHOLE eco-system..
HOW about Short ones that just TOP the water, or even Run UNDER water with the Ebbs and flows of the rivers.
The idea behind LARGE dams was 1 CENTRAL location..why not spread them around.
Its the same thought that CAN go with SOLAR..why setup a LARGE AREA when you can plant on in Every City block or even EVERY yard in the South west USA.
Problem we have is that a PLOT of land isnt a PLOT anymore. we make them Smaller and smaller..it SUCKS.
I saw a development in portland that was VERY cool. Take all the home around a block and make SMALLER yards, leaving the BACK yards as an open playground, for use by everyone. and ALL the homes around it can monitor it. IF this was in the SW states, 1 sterling Solar setup could power all the homes and still give Room to play.
The REAL problem with power, is storage. Its made and then MUST be used. We have little or NO storage ability.
#52, jAG, & gLENN,
Sounds like the Republican reaction to Obama’s health care plan…
Same script and actors. Only difference is the name on the cover.
#56 Stop showing you comprehension handycap. Who the hell is talking about lack of electricity for the cars. I’m talking about the kind of electricity generation that’s available, which will generate as much pollution as gas cars.
After crying for non-polluting energy in the form of things like eolic, the enviroloonatics are now saying that they’re a threat to birds. Where they so dumb as to not foresee this? The answer is YES.
The same thing will happen to the elctric cars. I count on the enviroloons for this.
But hey, I’m pretty considerate with people wiht low comprehension skills. So, if you wanna try again, I’ll be more than happy to put you down once more.
#62 – Mr. Fusion
How true!
#63 – Hoover
Argue your points… at the end of the day, you just another Luddite. Keep the status quo… a true right-winger.
#64 Aaaaah, the lousy arguments of an pwned poster. It’s good to know you don’t get too flustered when you get pwned.
Well if you use coal power generated electricity you can save the money spent on imported fuel but they aren’t going to do that and alternative energy sources are still costly and not completely dependable. The only solution for that now is, at the least, a back up system based on fossil fuels.
Interesting discussion:
#3 (et al):
There can be no such thing as clean coal, clean natural gas, clean diesel, clean gasoline, or clean wood-burning, because these are all hydrocarbons and produce CO2 as a byproduct. Even if you remove the “impurities” (and we have done a pretty good job of that with gasoline) you still create greenhouse gasses as a byproduct.
As for nuclear, despite the propaganda, the real reason more plants aren’t being built is that when all is added up, the cost of construction, cost of operation, cost of disposal of the fuel (BIG problem) it is one of the most expensive ways to produce power.
Most nuclear plants in the US are approaching end of life. The law pushed to allow more expansion will most likely be used to replace/refurbish existing plants.
That pretty much leaves hydroelectric, solar, wind, and hydrogen. Hydrogen production issues will need to be resolved before it is really viable as a clean fuel.
C1
#64, Jag,
I don’t think of ‘dro as being a Luddite. To me, he appears to just like arguing contrary positions. Since he doesn’t have much intelligence or imagination, his arguments almost always turn to ad hominems.
If you’ve read this far, thanks.
This guy sounds like what big iron computer makers said about PCs back in the 1970s.
Sure, they’re cute and all, but if you want to get any real work done, you need a PDP-11!
#68 – Mr. Fusion
You’re correct, again.
#68 If by making ad hominem attacks you mean pwning a troll like you, you’re correct sir.
WOW! The amount of ignorance in this whole thread is stupefying.
The article at the beginning of this thread comes from advocates getting rid of all private vehicles, and almost every one of you in this thread is trying to figure out how to keep private vehicles on the road.
If we can’t get EVs to work, then our society is royally screwed. The days of gas powered vehicles is numbered. By 2020 gas will be too expensive or impossible to get.
#63 “Who the hell is talking about lack of electricity for the cars. I’m talking about the kind of electricity generation that’s available, which will generate as much pollution as gas cars.”
Do your research dude. Studies have been done that say if we all drive electric cars instead of gas powered cars, the amount of gasoline needed to generate the electricity to power those cars is approximately half what we are pouring into our tanks now. That means half the pollution.
Of course the article is right in that there are huge obstacles in the way of converting America’s fleet to EV.
Which is why I’m convinced the future isn’t in cars, its in electric powered bicycles for short distances, and trains on electrified rails for freight and long distances.
Dumb shits!
Read the last few lines of the source.
Here is what sounds to me like a wrong assumption of the original article: the table used assumes 48watts of battery power. So the article says that it is best to distribute this to more cars in the form of hybrids instead of full electrics, and if the electrics hoard them all the rest of us will be forced to use gas and then, there you go, the whole thing falls down.
But isn’t there more than 48 watts of battery to go around? Are we running out of batteries? The whole argument pivots around a fixed total number of batteries. Even if that is a problem right now, as time passes production will go up and prices down.
What am I missing?
And this is a separate question from all the arguments above, so don’t start yelling (at me) about LiPO vs NIMH vs LiFE vs lead or nukes vs coal.
#73 – Qon Quixote el Dumb shit! – Read the last few lines of the source.
It’s been read and commented on, long before your post, el Dumb shit!
Are We Heading Down The Wrong Road With Gasoline Vehicles?
The horse carriage has been a useful and reliable transport menthod for hundreds of years.
BTW Seeking Alpha is a far rightwing, libertarian investment website that hates any government regulation while conveniently ignoring that lack of regulation is why we are in disaster mode right now.