think about this the next time you're at the gas station!

polaris_x

he still stands wrote:

Again, petroleum is by far the cheapeast energy available.

only because of the subsidies associated with oil ... if we paid the true cost of oil - it's nowhere close to being the cheapest energy available ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris_x wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But that is only the case like you said if you are using wind, or some other form of power generation with little or no emmissions. If you are using coal you are still polluting just as much if not more (and a huge percentage of power generated in the US is done using coal). I would be interested in seeing more electric cars, but I am not sure how fast it could be done since it would place an increased demand on the power grid.

wind or hydro ... yes, coal would not be good ... the thing is tho that most would be charging their cars overnight when power requirements are at the lowest ...

You're correct that they could be charged at night when demand is low. But if that would be the case then it would worry me in places where coal power produces the majority of the electricity. In those locations all they would do is ramp up the output of the existing coal power plants at night to meet the demand , which would be much cheaper then building new wind/hydro generation to run at night.

Pepe Silvia

JonnyPistachio wrote:

he still stands wrote:

ajedigecko wrote:

You assume that the combustion engine isn't the best method of getting us around. It is BY FAR the cheapest and BY FAR the most efficient. It is probably one of the top 10 achievements in the history of man.

That being said, it is dirty. Other methods of (clean) energy transfer are less efficient (horsepower & torque) and much more expensive. So, it comes down to a question of $$$ versus pollution. And the pollution thing is being attacked daily as some sort of communist conspiracy by the right-wing media, but my opinion is that the longevity and health of this planet and of people and animals is more important than saving a dollar today...

I'm not completely sure and a little too lazy to look it up, but I think combustion engines actually have a pretty low efficiency, in the range of 20%.

they do, i put all that info in the OP

polaris_x

Kel Varnsen wrote:

You're correct that they could be charged at night when demand is low. But if that would be the case then it would worry me in places where coal power produces the majority of the electricity. In those locations all they would do is ramp up the output of the existing coal power plants at night to meet the demand , which would be much cheaper then building new wind/hydro generation to run at night.

did you know ontario can go without coal right now? ... there would be no need to ramp up coal at night as the drain could be met ... edit: http://cleanairalliance.org/

wind is the cheapest form of new energy production right now ... again - subsidies aside ...

Pepe Silvia

polaris_x wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

You're correct that they could be charged at night when demand is low. But if that would be the case then it would worry me in places where coal power produces the majority of the electricity. In those locations all they would do is ramp up the output of the existing coal power plants at night to meet the demand , which would be much cheaper then building new wind/hydro generation to run at night.

did you know ontario can go without coal right now? ... there would be no need to ramp up coal at night as the drain could be met ...

wind is the cheapest form of new energy production right now ... again - subsidies aside ...

i like the technology that uses the power of the tide to power a generator....of course this can't be used for a car but we could easily break it up and supply ALL our electrical needs by putting photovoltaics in the desert areas, wind turbines in windy areas, hydroelectric on the coasts where there's strong tides....

Kel Varnsen

polaris_x wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

You're correct that they could be charged at night when demand is low. But if that would be the case then it would worry me in places where coal power produces the majority of the electricity. In those locations all they would do is ramp up the output of the existing coal power plants at night to meet the demand , which would be much cheaper then building new wind/hydro generation to run at night.

did you know ontario can go without coal right now? ... there would be no need to ramp up coal at night as the drain could be met ... edit: http://cleanairalliance.org/

wind is the cheapest form of new energy production right now ... again - subsidies aside ...

Which is great for Ontario, and wish they would shut the coal plants down faster. But the US gets around half its electricity from coal. So if all of the sudden there are a ton of new electrical appliances (car batteries) that need to be charged, the quickest way to charge them is to run those coal plants at the same capacity at night that they do in the day, leading to as much if not more pollution then you would have by just running the car on a gas engine.

JonnyPistachio

he still stands wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I'm not completely sure and a little too lazy to look it up, but I think combustion engines actually have a pretty low efficiency, in the range of 20%. I have read that electric cars, hydrogen powered, and even natural gas vehiclkes have a much higher efficiency level. And Electric cars can provide much more torque through all ranges of acceleration becasue there is no chemical reaction -- it's just straight power. Our typical gasoline engines lose a lot of energy in the burning process.

20% efficiency? Efficiency of what? Power to the ground? Torque at the driveshaft? Please be more specific... There is a reason big construction/farm equipment uses diesel fuel. It produces much more horsepower and torque than any other method and the same is true with cars. You move fast and far with relatively little energy use. You must also consider what it takes to get "X amount of energy" from the source to the end-user. Again, petroleum is by far the cheapeast energy available.

I'm not an advocate of using more oil or anything... just in search of the facts. Let's all take off our environmentalist goggles and see the situation for what it is. $$$ vs. Pollution.

Unfortunately, the $$$ will always win, or at least that has been true since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe people can change their habits... but I hear a lot of talk and VERY LITTLE action.

the actual potential energy in gasoline. Of the total heat energy potential of gasoline, some 70-80% is lost or ejected in things like exhaust or friction of moving parts. I guess you'd call it power to the ground.. or the potentil energy of gasoline vs. the amount of power that is created propel the vehicle forward --You just have to google it I guess. it's all over the place. And yes, or course diesel is much more efficient.

polaris_x

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Which is great for Ontario, and wish they would shut the coal plants down faster. But the US gets around half its electricity from coal. So if all of the sudden there are a ton of new electrical appliances (car batteries) that need to be charged, the quickest way to charge them is to run those coal plants at the same capacity at night that they do in the day, leading to as much if not more pollution then you would have by just running the car on a gas engine.

really? ... extracting and refining and burning oil/gas is better than coal?

he still stands

polaris_x wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Again, petroleum is by far the cheapeast energy available.

only because of the subsidies associated with oil ... if we paid the true cost of oil - it's nowhere close to being the cheapest energy available ...

to say that oil is... "nowhere clost to being the cheapest energy available" due to subsidies is at best arguable... more likely it is just plain wrong.

Federal energy subsidies IN TOTAL... yes oil receives the most. But the oil industry is massive compared to other energy sources available...

If you look at the subsidy for every "energy unit produced" (admittedly I don't know exactly what that is) it is small compared to others. Renewables received 26 times as much, Nuclear energy receives 16 times as much, coal receives 3 times as much, and natural gas receives 2 times as much subsidies per unit energy unit produced. (Source; energy information administration... source may controversial I guess if you don't believe everything the government tells you... but hey its the best I could do as far as an "unbiased" source)

All energy industries receives subsidies and oil receives the fewest per unit. It would be like looking at a nation's GDP without looking at the GDP per capita.

polaris_x

he still stands wrote:

to say that oil is... "nowhere clost to being the cheapest energy available" due to subsidies is at best arguable... more likely it is just plain wrong.

Federal energy subsidies IN TOTAL... yes oil receives the most. But the oil industry is massive compared to other energy sources available...

If you look at the subsidy for every "energy unit produced" (admittedly I don't know exactly what that is) it is small compared to others. Renewables received 26 times as much, Nuclear energy receives 16 times as much, coal receives 3 times as much, and natural gas receives 2 times as much subsidies per unit energy unit produced. (Source; energy information administration... source may controversial I guess if you don't believe everything the government tells you... but hey its the best I could do as far as an "unbiased" source)

All energy industries receives subsidies and oil receives the fewest per unit. It would be like looking at a nation's GDP without looking at the GDP per capita.

edit: more subsidies links

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07 ... p-them.php
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

but what are you looking at - just the refinery process? ... what about the cost of extraction? ... the energy used to extract and refine the oil ... etc ...

http://cleantech.com/news/node/554

While it's easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, remember that subsidies are important across all sectors of the energy industry.

Pepe Silvia

JonnyPistachio wrote:

he still stands wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I'm not completely sure and a little too lazy to look it up, but I think combustion engines actually have a pretty low efficiency, in the range of 20%. I have read that electric cars, hydrogen powered, and even natural gas vehiclkes have a much higher efficiency level. And Electric cars can provide much more torque through all ranges of acceleration becasue there is no chemical reaction -- it's just straight power. Our typical gasoline engines lose a lot of energy in the burning process.

20% efficiency? Efficiency of what? Power to the ground? Torque at the driveshaft? Please be more specific... There is a reason big construction/farm equipment uses diesel fuel. It produces much more horsepower and torque than any other method and the same is true with cars. You move fast and far with relatively little energy use. You must also consider what it takes to get "X amount of energy" from the source to the end-user. Again, petroleum is by far the cheapeast energy available.

I'm not an advocate of using more oil or anything... just in search of the facts. Let's all take off our environmentalist goggles and see the situation for what it is. $$$ vs. Pollution.

Unfortunately, the $$$ will always win, or at least that has been true since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe people can change their habits... but I hear a lot of talk and VERY LITTLE action.

the actual potential energy in gasoline. Of the total heat energy potential of gasoline, some 70-80% is lost or ejected in things like exhaust or friction of moving parts. I guess you'd call it power to the ground.. or the potentil energy of gasoline vs. the amount of power that is created propel the vehicle forward --You just have to google it I guess. it's all over the place. And yes, or course diesel is much more efficient.

you can google it or just read the OP