Electric Cars and Solar Power Kills babies.

[jmc]

1)There are no 80% efficient electric engines if you account for the source of electricity.

2)The deal is. If it costs (currently) $2 a ton mile (hypothetical) to move goods/humans and you raise the cost to $4 a ton mile fewer people are going to be able to afford the goods moved. On the margin it will cause more starvation than reducing the cost to move the goods to $1 a ton mile. Or even keeping the costs the same.

3)Green is a good idea. It would be much better if the roll out was determined by economics rather than government fiat.

1) I won't argue with that. When taking the source of production into account you go from 25% (small car engine) to 40% (efficient modern large power station) of that 40% you lose a further 4% in transmission losses, bringing you down to 36% and then a further 7% from the 80% battery efficiency, bringing you to 28%. So it ends up being about equal. However firstly from an Oil peak issue you move alot of short range commuter requirements away from oil, leaving the remaining finite reserves of the world's oil for the important irreplacable tasks like longhaul trucking, long commutes, shipping and aircraft fuel.

Secondly in the future when more nuclear plants are installed (fingers crossed) electric vehicles will allow these nuclear plants to displace a lot more carbon production then they would in a world where all transport is oil powered

Thirdly, it is better to emit fumes from a high smoke stack in a power station equipped with scrubbers etc. to remove most of the toxins then from a ground-level engine in a highly populated urban location.


2) There will probably be quite a number of functions where an electric engine will be cheaper than a petrol engine in terms of transport. Petrol is certainly more expensive than electricity. Well-designed electric batteries can already quite easily give you a range of 70 miles or so, which is enough for most commutes. They could also be used for a wide range of short range delivery job (milkvans already done, postvans, delivery vans for shops etc.) we don't need to increase the energy density by a factor of 20, all you need is to maybe increase the lifespan by a factor of 4 and decrease the recharge time by a factor of two and you have a product that is economically competitive for a nuimber of functions.

3) I think you need both. Past experience shows that a large number of technologies we now take for granted were not developed by private companies but were instead developed through large scale government funding either to the military or to universities (Jet Engines, Computers, Radar, the internet etc.) while subsidies are not a long term solution for any technology, sometimes they can help get them down the learning curve while they are at the initial stage of development in order to become economically competitive at a later stage.

[KitemanSA]

If green electricity costs a LOT more than than current electricity (it does) ...

Actually, in many cases, it wouldn't; except that current sources are greatly subsidized for the types of consumers that could use solar electric power effectively. The true cost of electricity in southern California is about 40-50 cents per kilowatt hour during peak summer usage periods (can you say "air conditioning"?). But residents don't have to pay that amount. Indeed, when CalGov linked removal of the residential subsidy with requiring grid connectivity for soar PV, the solar industry quaked in their boots because the effected residents screamed and cried about loosing their subsidy.

If CalGov were to remove the mandated low price for residents over a few years, solar PV would likely take off in CA without any payments by CalGov.

[MSimon]

3) I think you need both. Past experience shows that a large number of technologies we now take for granted were not developed by private companies but were instead developed through large scale government funding either to the military or to universities (Jet Engines, Computers, Radar, the internet etc.) while subsidies are not a long term solution for any technology, sometimes they can help get them down the learning curve while they are at the initial stage of development in order to become economically competitive at a later stage.

The problem here is scale. A subsidy AMOUNT of about 10% of what is being shoveled out wouldn't hurt much. Add in another EQUAL amount for R&D and the scheme would do a LOT better in bringing down costs than what we have now.

The experience in Spain is instructive.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/vi ... id/3313233

3. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 ($800,000) to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1.4 million) per wind industry job. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.

[TallDave]

However firstly from an Oil peak issue you move alot of short range commuter requirements away from oil, leaving the remaining finite reserves of the world's oil for the important irreplacable tasks like longhaul trucking, long commutes, shipping and aircraft fuel.

It's still an open question how finite they are; everyone who ever predicted oil would run out or become too expensive for common use has ended up looking silly because of advances in extraction technology. The recent Brazilian find was massive. Besides, there are renewable substitutes which will keep getting cheaper.

I do not want to drive or own an electric car, ever. I want power and torque and mass and to be able to drive across the country anytime I feel like it.

2) There will probably be quite a number of functions where an electric engine will be cheaper than a petrol engine in terms of transport. Petrol is certainly more expensive than electricity.

It is today. A lot of the time, though, it hasn't been that different.

[TallDave]

If CalGov were to remove the mandated low price for residents over a few years, solar PV would likely take off in CA without any payments by CalGov.

Actually, what would happen is that people would demand more cheap coal and nuclear plants instead of paying through the nose for solar or peak rates on the spot market.

I'm guessing the state is currently making up the difference between cost and price. No wonder CA is going bankrupt.

[jmc]

1)The problem here is scale. A subsidy AMOUNT of about 10% of what is being shoveled out wouldn't hurt much. Add in another EQUAL amount for R&D and the scheme would do a LOT better in bringing down costs than what we have now.

2)The experience in Spain is instructive.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/vi ... id/3313233

3. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 ($800,000) to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1.4 million) per wind industry job. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.

1) There's not doubt you want R&D aswell to bring down price, but some of the learning curve which brings down price is simply due to economies of scale. I.e. if you are going to produce 1000 units per year instead of 100 you can by bigger more expensive machines that cost more but cost less per unit and so the price comes down. R&D in Universities can't replace that.

2) Is this reffering to the tax burden that sustains green-jobs supressing overtaxed industries in other areas from expanding? I've always though that "job creation" being listed as and advantage of green power was a bit of a con. The purpose of green energy is not to "create jobs" its to prevent climate change and dependency on finite oil reserves.

Nonetheless alot of this work is just laying down infrastructure for wind, once the infrastructure has been installed maintaining it will cost less.

[jmc]

However firstly from an Oil peak issue you move alot of short range commuter requirements away from oil, leaving the remaining finite reserves of the world's oil for the important irreplacable tasks like longhaul trucking, long commutes, shipping and aircraft fuel.

1)It's still an open question how finite they are; everyone who ever predicted oil would run out or become too expensive for common use has ended up looking silly because of advances in extraction technology. The recent Brazilian find was massive. Besides, there are renewable substitutes which will keep getting cheaper.

2)I do not want to drive or own an electric car, ever. I want power and torque and mass and to be able to drive across the country anytime I feel like it.

2) There will probably be quite a number of functions where an electric engine will be cheaper than a petrol engine in terms of transport. Petrol is certainly more expensive than electricity.

3)It is today. A lot of the time, though, it hasn't been that different.

1) An open question I'd rather not put to the test, I heard the reserves in Brazil were relatively low quality and deep and expensive to mine. You can already save money in fuel driving an Electric Car all they need is to increase the battery lifetime and you've got a cheaper solution even without further price rises. Regardless of bringing attention to individual finds the overall situation is that this year was the first year the known reserves of oil contracted rather than expanded.

2) I do, although I might buy a cheapo 3rd hand petrol car for the occassional long trip. (Some electric cars do have torque)

3) It is today because the rate of growth in demand for gasoline is beginning to outstrip supply. I doubt that supply will increase in leaps and bounds for a good while yet, it will probably be 30 years + before tarsand technology is up to filling in the gap (with devastating affects to the Canadian countryside I may add) Not to mention climate change and urban air quality issues.

[MSimon]

All the green jobs must be working. The climate is not changing. In fact it seems to be getting cooler. Even the IPCC says that.

I'm trying to get a job in my city to keep unicorns from stampeding down main street and trampling a bunch of innocent bystanders. I have a secret formula for magic dust guaranteed to work. No one has ever seen a unicorn in my house.

But maybe you are right. Maybe it is a very good idea to keep plant food out of the atmosphere.

==

We have been having climate scares about every 30 years since the 1880s. Warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming. Now the PDO changes sign about every 30 years. I wonder if it is just coincidence.

The PDO went negative (cooling phase) a few years back. Probably just a coincidence. Because, you know, the science is settled.

[MSimon]

You can already save money in fuel driving an Electric Car all they need is to increase the battery lifetime and you've got a cheaper solution even without further price rises.

Of course you can. The taxes on electricity are much lower than the taxes on motor fuels. For now.

[TallDave]

There could be a LOT more economically viable oil out there. The cheapest oil costs less than $5/bbl to extract, but it's so useful it's competitive at prices up to something like $250/bbl. When it gets over $200 and stays there for a decade, then it's time to worry.

Investment in oil infrastructure is tricky. OPEC does its best to keep the supply/price curve in what is a very unstable region. Because of this, price fluctuates wildly with demand/supply shifts. Investors don't want to get caught in 10-year projects that deliver $50/bbl oil when prices could drop close to the Saudi production costs again. Meanwhile, environmentalists do their best to make it difficult to produce oil anywhere but in very poor countries.

The same thing happened to uranium. We should be building nuke plants right and left, but again environmentalists have stopped any new plants from being built for decades. Now some mines have closed because only the highest-grade uranium is economically viable, but there's massively more available at higher cost.

Climate change, or "global warming" as it used to be called before proponents decided to rebrand it after people started noticing it wasn't getting warmer anymore, is a largely mythical nonproblem; the notion CO2 is driving anything more than a degree of temperature change looks increasingly unlikely, and warmer temps have generally been a boon for mankind anyway. It makes a convenient cause celebre (or perhaps I should say raison d'etre?) for environmentalists because there just isn't much else left to complain about in Western countries: water and air are cleaner than ever.

[KitemanSA]

I'm guessing the state is currently making up the difference between cost and price. No wonder CA is going bankrupt.

If I unbderstand it correctly, the state just requires the companies to provide subsidized power, and the companies have to figure out how to compensate for the losses.

[MSimon]

I'm guessing the state is currently making up the difference between cost and price. No wonder CA is going bankrupt.

If I unbderstand it correctly, the state just requires the companies to provide subsidized power, and the companies have to figure out how to compensate for the losses.

Just raise the prices on every one - i.e. a hidden tax.

[EricF]

I'm trying to get a job in my city to keep unicorns from stampeding down main street and trampling a bunch of innocent bystanders. I have a secret formula for magic dust guaranteed to work. No one has ever seen a unicorn in my house.

I think I know the perfect place for you go to work on that idea.

Congress.

[KitemanSA]

Just raise the prices on every one - i.e. a hidden tax.

Effectively, yes. So TallDave, this may indeed be an example of why CA the region is going bankrupt; CA the gov keeps making stupid economic decisions!

[Roger]

(Some electric cars do have torque)

Like a gas car, if its built to race, an electric car has gobs of torque

I used to run a Hobbyshop, we sold radio control cars and trucks, gas and electric. Electric RC in a scale 1/10th 1/4 mile, (IIRC 132 ft) records consistent 3.2 to 4 second runs, a good gas car runs sub 5 seconds.

I built a gas RC car as s dragster, I went nuts trying to make it as fast as an electric car with a lot of hand crafted modifications, big race motor 1.6 HP, 8 re-ported intake, reground crankshaft, 40k rpm, special race clutch, 2 spd trans,,,,,, $1400 by the end of the day.

That car could run with some electrics, but the forces on my expensive clutch, $125, being dumped at 5k rpm was too much, I sometimes blew my clutch after 3-4 runs.

Dave, RU looking for some torque? These amateurs are not as fast as pro fuel cars, but getting closer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20024352/

Zero to 60 in under 1 second isnt too bad. sub 9 seconds isnt too far from a nitro bike.

MSimon, I am not surprised you built a solar project, I guess it should be expected, lol.