$7-a-gallon gas?

[ptif219]

Is reading fundamental? Did I say Solar was generating most of our electricity? No.



I wasn't aware that non-operating turbines generated electricty. Please show how this is possible.



What country are you refering to?

Different sources of electricity, what are the different sources of electricity, alternative sources of electricity, alternative energy sources
File:2008 US electricity generation by source v2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fuel Sources for Electricity Generation- U.S.

Clearly, it's not the US? Maybe Saudi Arabia?



Uh, does the concept of electric vehicles mean anything to you?

70% from coal, oil and natural gas.

What is Electricity!


How do windmills get to there destination? the cost and government subsidies make wind very expensive

 

[ptif219]

The economy will adapt. Smaller cars that are more fuel efficient will be used in greater numbers. People will live closer together and freight will be moved primarily by trains.

... no ... US is self-sufficient in electricity. Most of our electricity comes from hydro, coal and nuclear. Coal is transported primarily by train and by sea-lanes. Diesel trains will be replaced by electric ones if there is no long-term benefit in using them.

Will not happen. There are not enough trains and the freight has to be moved from the rail to its destination. Your plan sounds good is not possible. Then will come more taxes in other areas because of less gas bought

 

[The_Penguin]

The US is not self sufficient in electricty.

BC and Quebec export electricity to the US. Quebec does so in large amounts to the North East US. Canada on the other hand does not import much electricity from the US, perhaps occasionally southern Ontario and Alberta will during peak periods of demand, but now where near the amounts that Quebec exports

That's cool, you buy some juice from us . And, the amount you sell is quite small, so it can be safely said that US is self-sufficient in electricity production.

Electricity sector in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, you're self-sufficiency in your energy supplies makes my point sound.

 

[The_Penguin]

Will not happen. There are not enough trains and the freight has to be moved from the rail to its destination. Your plan sounds good is not possible. Then will come more taxes in other areas because of less gas bought

Yes it will. It's already happening. People are moving closer to urban centers. In some ways, it's a reversal of the White Flight in the 50's and 60's. The simple fact is higher gas prices and unstable employment situations are forcing people to move closer together, where employment opportunities are more plentiful.

Furthermore, look back at this country 200 years ago. In 1800 most people were living in rural areas, small towns and such. The first big transport super-highway was the Erie Canal and that transformed NYC. Then came the iron horse and that changed the country even more. Massive factories occupied major urban areas. After that, highways were built and on the back of cheap oil, we got our suburbs. We've changed the economy and society so often, what makes you say that it can't happen again?

 

[cholla]

Not really. If you up the tax on gas gradually, say 10 cents over every 2 months, the economy will adapt just fine. Also, if you decrease other taxes along the way (and certain regulations), you will see emphasis on taxing consumption (and we all know how well that's been working out for this country over the past 20 years) and a reduced reliance on taxing what people make (say the personal income tax or the tax on gains on interest paid to you by the bank in your savings account.)

Good luck with this, the additional punishment taxes have a slim to none chance of replacing existing income ones.

 

[Pal]

The logic of the OP is essentially "Let's criticize Obama for an indirect result of what his policies may possibily lead to in the future as estimated by an outside source and forget that gas prices (you know, the non-theoretical, literal kind of gas prices) hit record highs under Bush for an entire summer."

 

[drz-400]

Europe uses diesels more then hybrids. Diesels provide fuel economy levels that rival hybrids in combined cycles. Where Hybrids do better in the city, the diesels do better on the highway. Given that diesel fuel is cheaper then gasoline in Europe, it is more pratical for Europeans to go for diesel technology rather then the hybrid tech.

The diesel cycle is less efficient than the otto cycle (gas engines). The hybrid (aka hydrogen cycles) use regeneration and in theory can be 100% efficient, but this will never happen. Diesel engines are more efficeint is because of a practical reason, they use a higher compression ratio.

 

[drz-400]

70% from coal, oil and natural gas.

What is Electricity!


How do windmills get to there destination? the cost and government subsidies make wind very expensive

Coal is by far the largest producer of our electricity. Natural gas comes in second by by a long shot. Nuclear is 3rd, hydroelectric is 4th, renewables as a whole are 5th, petrolium is 6th.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

Natural gas, nuclear, and renewables have been growing quite a bit over the years. Natural gas has the most potential at the moment in my opinion.

 

[The_Penguin]

Good luck with this, the additional punishment taxes have a slim to none chance of replacing existing income ones.

It can be done. The challenge is to build a united Republican front that wants to shift emphasis away from income based taxes to consumption based taxes.

 

[zimmer]

Europe uses diesels more then hybrids. Diesels provide fuel economy levels that rival hybrids in combined cycles. Where Hybrids do better in the city, the diesels do better on the highway. Given that diesel fuel is cheaper then gasoline in Europe, it is more pratical for Europeans to go for diesel technology rather then the hybrid tech.

Depends where you go. Some diesel prces are as high as gas. The Dutch for example.

They have found a new problem with diesels... Feinstaub. Older models get penalized.

Diesel prices: When gas is $7.30 per gallon, diesel is maybe 80 cents to a dollar cheaper.

Have to say, the diesels run like gas. You'd never know if someone didn't tell you.

.

 

[obvious Child]

First, let me say that you have a bad habit of putting things in people's mouths they have never said or condoned.

You have a bad habit of lying your @ss off.

If you continue, I'll keep posting the above as a warning to others.

Yeah so much so they can't win an argument against me.

I think it's fair... and I'd do it in a debate where the opponent keeps attributing words never uttered, or twisting them beyond all sane reason.

Watch: I think it's fair... and I'd do it in a debate where the opponent keeps lying about what he said and what others said.

Except you are tragically wrong again.

Once again, Zimmer fails:
German state adopts Autobahn speed limit — Autoblog
Not really news, but I'd just point it out.

ANOTHER OF YOUR PUTTING WORDS IN SOMEONE'S MOUTH.

How so? You are clearly against raising taxes as a method of creating incentives for substitutes. And you are clearly for drilling more oil which does nothing but keep us on the investment track of oil. And you have come out against large scale funding for renewable and constantly mocked renewable. Nothing you've said shows you support incentives for anything but oil. Stop lying that you are actually for incentives.

NO PENALTIES... ROTFLOL... WANNA SCREEN SHOT?

Go for it.

MY POINT BEING.
GIVE THE WHOLE NATION A TAX BREAK.
Did it go over your head?
Did you not see the JFK link?

Did you not see my post? Why is that you, like many others here deliberately ignore what you don't like? The problem with your JFK link is that it ignores the concept of linear regression. You ASSUME that tax cuts are the answer because the aggregate data shows what you want but you do absolutely nothing to actually SHOW that it was the cause. While I realize most people here have absolutely no understanding of statistics, Linear Regression is the tool to hold all factors except the one in question constant and to measure the impact of that one factor. It is the tool to actually prove that tax cuts caused the actual outcomes. Idiots ignore or either don't understand what linear regression is and assume that tax cuts were the cause. It is as if you think nothing except tax cuts happened during that time period. Which is pretty insanely ignorant considering what actually does occur in modern economies. You won't address this part of my post because you cannot address it. You like Conservative assume what you wish to be true before actually finding out if it is true. I constantly bring up linear regression against people like you who first assume what they wish to be true and base all arguments off of that. How about you start with actually proving what you wish to be true instead of first assuming it?

Epic fail on Zimmer.

YOU NEVER ASKED ME THE QUESTION... SO... THERE YOU GO AGAIN[/B]
NOW... DO YOU MEAN CORRELATION? NOVICES GET THEM CONFUSED.

PERHAPS YOU CAN ENLIGHTEN THE CLASS AS TO THE DIFFERENCE.p

Correlation and causation and linear regression are two different things. People like assume since the bear patrol started, no bears were seen. It;s like thinking that the sun goes down because street lights come on. I already explained what linear regression is but I doubt it will help since you don't actually care about facts.

ROTFLOl

Which is your standard response to something you don't understand.

Strike, strike, strike[/COLOR]... You've struck out twice.
Shall we attempt something less rigorous?

Say what? You claimed that American car manufacturers are unable to make their cars any more efficient. I then cited the same manufacturers producing higher efficiency vehicles for the European market, and included a link which included a discussion on the Ford Fiesta, which is selling in America and is being used as base technology to boost efficiency. You then dishonestly tried to change the discussion to something either different to hide the fact that you were wrong. And you refused to admit you were wrong about your claim.

STOP LYING.

]The hybrid, mini-car, shoe-box argument is meaningless[/B]. It only has meaning if you think we need to desperately need to conserve.
We don't need to desperately conserve. We can afford large American vehicles, especially if taxes on the stuff was reduced.

Clearly you didn't read the link. The cars in the link were NOT hybrid, mini-car or shoe-box. Thanks for bothering to actually read what other people write. Not.

Euros have stupidly inflated fuel prices; 75% of it is tax.

And they have less impacts from oil price shocks. And they are less dependent on others for oil. And they have larger renewable export industries related to vehicles then we do. And they have new industries that support such production. Stupid you say?

Now, these mini-cars result in unneeded deaths and people being maimed. For what? Some Enviromaniac?

Tell me how the same model BMW running on an efficient diesel engine is a death box. Or you could just run away like you normally do.

As for saving? They don't save, they cost.

Smoke this

Really? Do you realize that the entire discussion of those articles was that larger, more inefficient cars are the actual problem? How the hell does that support your position?

You can drive a shoe box... just don't get into a wreck.

.[/QUOTE]

Like the Audi A6 TDi?

One must wonder if you can see.

Seriously?

The study, Gingrich reported, wasn't rejected because it lacked academic merit. It was rejected because the finding was so well known.

Since Gingrich said so, therefore it is true?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/75283-supply-and-demand.html#post1058814203
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...es/75275-drill-baby-drill.html#post1058814064

Do the math.

So let's stop exploring at home... that's your MO... enjoy it.
The Chinese are working with all manner of despot to get energy, and they're building infra to support it; like the supertanker harbor in Hambantota.

Did I say stop explorering? Or have you LIED YOUR @SS off again? I said we should push for renewables. As demand quickly outpaces growth in supply, prices can only go up. Really, are you capable of posting without lying?

ROTFLMAO... there are alternatives to durable plastics... LOL... Let's get out when we have an alternative resource.

Not really. Organic based plastics are generally not durable. And yes, we should get out when we have an alternative resource when it's viable and before the current reaches ridiculous prices.

In time it will happen, but we have fuel for a good long while... and with that... we should go get it.

So in your words, let's keep using oil and not try to get off it.

Well, there's a reason Saudia Arabia has so much money. You.

 

[obvious Child]

70% from coal, oil and natural gas.

Not the same as majority from oil eh? I'll take that as you admit you were wrong.

How do windmills get to there destination? the cost and government subsidies make wind very expensive

How do subsidies make wind expensive?

Again, you ignore the concept of electric vehicles. And we have ships that don't use petroleum based products for fuel.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The diesel cycle is less efficient than the otto cycle (gas engines). The hybrid (aka hydrogen cycles) use regeneration and in theory can be 100% efficient, but this will never happen. Diesel engines are more efficeint is because of a practical reason, they use a higher compression ratio.

You contridicted yourself here to a degree, diesel cycle is less efficient then the otto cycle, but diesel engines are more efficient then Otto cycle engines

Now as to why diesels can have a higher compression is that they are not subject to preignition of the fuel as are otto cycle gasoline engines. The preignition can be very damaging to the engine.

GM and Benz are working on variable compression engines that can operate similar to a diesel and a otto cycle engine

 

[Goyboy]

Folks, there are two topics being discussed in this thread: The source of energy for automobile engines, and the source of energy for the production of electricity.

Wind power is great for the generation of electricity, but wind power won't provide the horsepower needed to move cargo-laden semis over mountains.

Granted, wind power can provide energy to all-electric vehicles, but all-electric vehicles don't necessarily have the horsepower needed to move heavy loads over mountainous terrains.

Diesel engines provide plenty of horsepower, and diesel engines were originally designed to run on fuel made out of something other than crude oil.

So, I envision a future in which more diesel engines run on agriculture-based fuels, in which diesel engines become more common in automobiles that are used in rural areas.

 

[obvious Child]

Folks, there are two topics being discussed in this thread: The source of energy for automobile engines, and the source of energy for the production of electricity.

True, however the two aren't that a far. Tesla has shown that electric cars can provide horsepower to move large loads. They built a bloody electric muscle car for crying outloud. It is indeed possible.

Wind power is great for the generation of electricity, but wind power won't provide the horsepower needed to move cargo-laden semis over mountains.

By itself no. But serving as the charging method for beef electric vehicles, it can.

Granted, wind power can provide energy to all-electric vehicles, but all-electric vehicles don't necessarily have the horsepower needed to move heavy loads over mountainous terrains.

I don't know about that. If they can make a electic muscle car, why not a decent electric truck?

 

[Goyboy]

If they can make a electic muscle car, why not a decent electric truck?

I would welcome the invention of an all-electric semi that can haul loads over the Rocky Mountains.
Being that I am not an automotive engineer, I do not know what the current horsepower limits are for all-electric vehicles. Yet, I do know that it takes more horsepower to move a cargo-laden semi over a mountain than it does to move a passenger car over the same kind of terrain.

This:

vs. this:

 

[obvious Child]

I would welcome the invention of an all-electric semi that can haul loads over the Rocky Mountains.
Being that I am not an automotive engineer, I do not know what the current horsepower limits are for all-electric vehicles. Yet, I do know that it takes more horsepower to move a cargo-laden semi over a mountain than it does to move a passenger car over the same kind of terrain.

Absolutely. However, the viability of a muscle electric car suggests that there is sufficently large potential for electric trucks. The key here is that the Tesla Roadster is a muscle car. It's not a civic by any means. If they can get an electric car from 0 to 60 in under 5 seconds with a top speed of well in excess of 130 mph, turning out a decent electric truck that can't break 80 mph shouldn't be too hard. I'm not saying it's possible now, merely later.

 

[reefedjib]

Absolutely. However, the viability of a muscle electric car suggests that there is sufficently large potential for electric trucks. The key here is that the Tesla Roadster is a muscle car. It's not a civic by any means. If they can get an electric car from 0 to 60 in under 5 seconds with a top speed of well in excess of 130 mph, turning out a decent electric truck that can't break 80 mph shouldn't be too hard. I'm not saying it's possible now, merely later.

The problem with producing an electric semi may not be torque and horsepower. It will be capacity and distance. If it drains the batteries in, let's be generous, 6 hours, then it will have to sit for a number of hours plugged in to regenerate the voltage differential in the battery. This will not be conducive to carrying large loads over long distances.

 

[obvious Child]

The problem with producing an electric semi may not be torque and horsepower. It will be capacity and distance. If it drains the batteries in, let's be generous, 6 hours, then it will have to sit for a number of hours plugged in to regenerate the voltage differential in the battery. This will not be conducive to carrying large loads over long distances.

No question. Hence why we need to do what many have called for. A $500 million prize for the first person who can produce a viable long term battery. There are plenty of obstacles to replacing gasoline cars with full electric. There's no question about that. But unlike some here, I think we need to try to overcome them as soon as possible. Last I checked, the Tesla only requires around 6 hours of charge. So when a trucker is sleeping. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that trucks would only carry one set of batteries.

 

[reefedjib]

No question. Hence why we need to do what many have called for. A $500 million prize for the first person who can produce a viable long term battery. There are plenty of obstacles to replacing gasoline cars with full electric. There's no question about that. But unlike some here, I think we need to try to overcome them as soon as possible. Last I checked, the Tesla only requires around 6 hours of charge. So when a trucker is sleeping. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that trucks would only carry one set of batteries.

It will certainly make Afghanistan more popular, given the recent Lithium finds.

There is the opportunity that a driver can drive 18 hours on multiple banks of batteries and then sleep, recharging all banks for 6 hours. The infrastructure for changing stations will need to be put into place, but profit can be the driver there.

Personally, I would like to see more CNG use, for commercial trucks.

 

[obvious Child]

It will certainly make Afghanistan more popular, given the recent Lithium finds.

Not to mention Chile as well.

There is the opportunity that a driver can drive 18 hours on multiple banks of batteries and then sleep, recharging all banks for 6 hours. The infrastructure for changing stations will need to be put into place, but profit can be the driver there.

Definitely. We'd need significent changes to the infrastucture. But imagine if we had fully electric trucks being charged by nuclear power plants at night or renewable stored power. No money going to Iran or Russia. That in itself is beautiful.

Personally, I would like to see more CNG use, for commercial trucks.

Not a bad proposal. especially since we have so much of it.

 

[Goyboy]

Personally, I would like to see more CNG use, for commercial trucks.

Sure, as long as there is natural gas to be used. However, is there evidence that Nature is replentishing the natural gas that is being removed from the ground?

If Nature isn't replentishing natural gas, then CNG can't last forever. Then what?

 

[reefedjib]

Definitely. We'd need significent changes to the infrastucture. But imagine if we had fully electric trucks being charged by nuclear power plants at night or renewable stored power. No money going to Iran or Russia. That in itself is beautiful.

It has to be nuclear. There is no way to store renewable power. It is AC and there is no AC battery. If we convert it to DC and store in massive batteries, the power loss would be significant.

Renewable energy doesn't yield an acceptable level of power. I believe the ranking is Wind, Solar, Hydro, Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas, Fission.

"The energy content of a kilogram of uranium or thorium, if spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed and fully utilized, is equivalent to about 3.5 million kilograms of coal." - Energy development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seeing as how a majority of energy is produced from coal...I don't know the exact numbers: 10% Fission, 1% Renewable, 10% Hydroelectric, 60% Coal, 20% Petroleum/CNG. Of these, Fission and Hydro are baseline load - you can't change their output - whereas Coal, Petroleum and CNG can change their load as demand changes. I would like to see fission, with fast breeder reactors, up to about 40% of total energy generation. In that scenario, we still need 50% from Coal, Petroleum and CNG.

 

[Goyboy]

But imagine if we had fully electric trucks being charged by nuclear power plants at night or renewable stored power. No money going to Iran or Russia. That in itself is beautiful.

Nuclear power plants rely on Uranium for fuel. Is Uranium a renewable source of energy? If not, then what happens when the Uranium is all used up?

 

[obvious Child]

It has to be nuclear. There is no way to store renewable power.

That's not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/earth/15sola.html
Gravel Batteries Offer a Solution for Renewable Energy Storage

Furthermore, there are current methods of using excess to pump water into storage tanks and then when needed open the tanks down into a hydroelectric plant. And there are attempting to pressurize air with excess power into caves and then releasing the pressurized air to generate electricity at night.

I would like to see fission, with fast breeder reactors, up to about 40% of total energy generation. In that scenario, we still need 50% from Coal, Petroleum and CNG.

I'd rather see thorium reactors. Uranium has problems.