Squilliam said: A Chevrolet Volt has an 8.8KW battery pack good for 40 Miles of purely electrical running. Since it takes 8 hours to charge the power draw would only be a little over a KW. It would be no worse than a small heater running through the night in terms of electrical consumption. I doubt that even a whole street of Volts would strain the grid locally. I hear theres plenty of coal/nuclear/hydro power to go around at night so it shouldn't be an issue. Also charging a Volt would cost only 80c which is a pittance next to the cost of gasoline. Solar power is pretty useful, but only in places with a lot of illumination. However its really expensive to install unfortunately and at this time except in corner cases its worse than a typical coal/gas fired power station. Â

It's not a lot per car, but when we have millions of cars charged simultanously, we are talking about gigawatts. The heaters are on only an hour or two due to timer, so there's not that much of an overlap.

One of the issues is the long time it takes to charge. It's not practical and causes huge overlap to charging. But, as i said, grid wouldn't be a problem in a long run.
It would be much more practical, if the battery would be charged in less than an hour and you could drive hundreds of kilometers without charging, instead of staying overnight at every gasstation.
The second generation hybrids would be optimal at this point of time. You could charge them out of a wall and they would charge while driving, making the car more practical overall.

There are lots of rather simple and practical solution using solar power or reneweable energy sources, just that every time the power issues are discussed in public, everything that has anything to do with the word "practical" is thrown away.

TheRealMafoo said: akuma587 said: Really the only smart answer when it comes to energy is to use everything: solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc. We can use oil and coal as a holdover, but we should really be doing everything in our power to move away from each as both have significant costs. Oil creates more problems for our economy than just about anything else, and is one of the leading reasons why the dollar depreciates with respect to other currencies. The dollar is pegged to oil. OPEC does everything in their power to keep oil prices high. This ends up screwing up the currency. Coal at least doesn't cause those kinds of problems, but it has plenty of other baggage along with it. It really is the least attractive of all the available fuel sources we have. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm OPEC is less then half of our import. There is no way you can tie the value of our dollar to the price OPEC sets for oil. The value of our dollar is tied to the value of the assets of the US in comparison to how many dollars we have. Doing things like spending trillions of dollars we don't have is what effects the dollar. That, and a 1.3 trillion in lose of US value. Not how much someone else sets for a product we buy.

I guess I must have been imagining the depreciation of U.S. currency before this recession even started that was directly tied to the spike in oil prices.

And this chart is totally made up too:

This one is made up too:

bdbdbd said: Squilliam said: A Chevrolet Volt has an 8.8KW battery pack good for 40 Miles of purely electrical running. Since it takes 8 hours to charge the power draw would only be a little over a KW. It would be no worse than a small heater running through the night in terms of electrical consumption. I doubt that even a whole street of Volts would strain the grid locally. I hear theres plenty of coal/nuclear/hydro power to go around at night so it shouldn't be an issue. Also charging a Volt would cost only 80c which is a pittance next to the cost of gasoline. Solar power is pretty useful, but only in places with a lot of illumination. However its really expensive to install unfortunately and at this time except in corner cases its worse than a typical coal/gas fired power station.   It's not a lot per car, but when we have millions of cars charged simultanously, we are talking about gigawatts. The heaters are on only an hour or two due to timer, so there's not that much of an overlap. One of the issues is the long time it takes to charge. It's not practical and causes huge overlap to charging. But, as i said, grid wouldn't be a problem in a long run. It would be much more practical, if the battery would be charged in less than an hour and you could drive hundreds of kilometers without charging, instead of staying overnight at every gasstation. The second generation hybrids would be optimal at this point of time. You could charge them out of a wall and they would charge while driving, making the car more practical overall. There are lots of rather simple and practical solution using solar power or reneweable energy sources, just that every time the power issues are discussed in public, everything that has anything to do with the word "practical" is thrown away.

The battery technology is improving extremely rapidly. They can be charged a lot faster now than they were several years ago. You're from the U.S. right? Since a lot of people have more than one vehicle it would be extremely practical for them to offer an electric only vehicle for people to use within a set radius for their daily commute etc. So long as the price remains within reach of a comparable gas powered vehicle as people tend to purchase their vehicles on finance they can appreciate a lower running/servicing cost of a purely electric vehicle as it would probably save them money on the longer term. Its not the solution for everyone and hybrid plug in vehicles may be the way to go for at least as many people but long term the market will probably satisfy everyones different needs.

Haha but yes I can see your pain when it comes to public debate. Im lucky that I live in a country with 70%+ renewable electricity production. We're having a big push for wind power with dozens of sites coming online between now and 2010 which should help us rid ourselves of dependency on fossil fuels. Personally the reason why im so for electric cars is because my country can produce so much renewable electricity already. In America they have a tonne of space available for Solar and Wind power its insane, especially in places like Texas/Arizona/California and even things like the Geothermal capacity is underutilised from what I can see.

Squilliam said: The battery technology is improving extremely rapidly. They can be charged a lot faster now than they were several years ago. You're from the U.S. right? Since a lot of people have more than one vehicle it would be extremely practical for them to offer an electric only vehicle for people to use within a set radius for their daily commute etc. So long as the price remains within reach of a comparable gas powered vehicle as people tend to purchase their vehicles on finance they can appreciate a lower running/servicing cost of a purely electric vehicle as it would probably save them money on the longer term. Its not the solution for everyone and hybrid plug in vehicles may be the way to go for at least as many people but long term the market will probably satisfy everyones different needs. Haha but yes I can see your pain when it comes to public debate. Im lucky that I live in a country with 70%+ renewable electricity production. We're having a big push for wind power with dozens of sites coming online between now and 2010 which should help us rid ourselves of dependency on fossil fuels. Personally the reason why im so for electric cars is because my country can produce so much renewable electricity already. In America they have a tonne of space available for Solar and Wind power its insane, especially in places like Texas/Arizona/California and even things like the Geothermal capacity is underutilised from what I can see.

It is my bad english that makes you think i'm from US, i believe.

I have two cars, and frankly, wouldn't mind if the other would be electric. It would save me a lot of money.
Most families have only one car, when electric cars aren't a real option. The idea in the hybrids would be to be able to travel the same distance as you can travel with a car with combustion engine, but also have the benefits of electric vehicle. But, yeah, at the moment (affordable) battery tech is the biggest problem.

USA could produce all the energy it needs geothermally in Yellowstone, i believe.

Reneweables and solar power is good to use where available, but since the discussion is mostly political, we are ending up in a situation, where solar power should be put where sun don't shine and wind generators where there's no wind, causing the increase in coal power (although Germany is ramming the CO2 back to ground) with heavy goverment funding only because it fits someones political agenda. A lot of the countries have some form of renewable source that could (at least partially) replace fossil fuels. For example, we have lots of turf, that could be made into gasoline with Fischer-Tropsch process.

bdbdbd said: It is my bad english that makes you think i'm from US, i believe. I have two cars, and frankly, wouldn't mind if the other would be electric. It would save me a lot of money. Most families have only one car, when electric cars aren't a real option. The idea in the hybrids would be to be able to travel the same distance as you can travel with a car with combustion engine, but also have the benefits of electric vehicle. But, yeah, at the moment (affordable) battery tech is the biggest problem. USA could produce all the energy it needs geothermally in Yellowstone, i believe. Reneweables and solar power is good to use where available, but since the discussion is mostly political, we are ending up in a situation, where solar power should be put where sun don't shine and wind generators where there's no wind, causing the increase in coal power (although Germany is ramming the CO2 back to ground) with heavy goverment funding only because it fits someones political agenda. A lot of the countries have some form of renewable source that could (at least partially) replace fossil fuels. For example, we have lots of turf, that could be made into gasoline with Fischer-Tropsch process.

Haha, maybe!

But the thing is if someone wants to travel further than the distance an electric car can manage they may very well be better off taking a train/plane or even renting a car. I don't think there are many people who would suffer too great a hardship if they were forced to drive electric cars with say 100 mile ranges or so (160km). The problem with hybrids is that you still have to pay for the expensive catalytic converter and expensive engine plus your fuel tank and other systems. A purely electrical car is much simpler and therefore could be cheaper in the long term and perhaps even cheaper to buy initially.

Unfortunately Yellowstone is a national park for them.

Finland would probably have some really good wind power potential. I would guess that it would be quite windy in your country, especially in the highlands. You also have lots of open spaces and noone to complain about the view! I suspect though that Solar wouldn't really be a winner for your country. In my country its up to the power companies to decide where to put the capacity. We have 3 state owned and 1 privately owned power companies all corporatised. What exactly do you have to convert to gasoline? Does Finland have large coal reserves?

 

akuma587 said: And this chart is totally made up too: This one is made up too:

 

Your right. The value of the most powerful world is set by the price of oil. It couldn't possibly be the other way around.

I bet you can find me a chart that shows increased deaths from lung cancer causes increase in the number of people smoking too.

TheRealMafoo said: akuma587 said: And this chart is totally made up too: This one is made up too:   Your right. The value of the most powerful world is set by the price of oil. It couldn't possibly be the other way around. I bet you can find me a chart that shows increased deaths from lung cancer causes increase in the number of people smoking too.

Well, technically both of us are right, because both end up contributing to the other.  Fears about the U.S. dollar (which have been there for at least a decade, its not just a recent phenomenon) tend to raise the price of oil while speculators on the oil market who think they can make a quick buck tend to cause the dollar to depreciate. 

When people think demand for oil will go up, it usually affects the dollar adversely.  When people think the dollar is doing poorly, the price of oil tends to go up.  So ironically economic recovery typically means higher oil prices even if people aren't so worried about the dollar.

Squilliam said: Haha, maybe! But the thing is if someone wants to travel further than the distance an electric car can manage they may very well be better off taking a train/plane or even renting a car. I don't think there are many people who would suffer too great a hardship if they were forced to drive electric cars with say 100 mile ranges or so (160km). The problem with hybrids is that you still have to pay for the expensive catalytic converter and expensive engine plus your fuel tank and other systems. A purely electrical car is much simpler and therefore could be cheaper in the long term and perhaps even cheaper to buy initially. Unfortunately Yellowstone is a national park for them. Finland would probably have some really good wind power potential. I would guess that it would be quite windy in your country, especially in the highlands. You also have lots of open spaces and noone to complain about the view! I suspect though that Solar wouldn't really be a winner for your country. In my country its up to the power companies to decide where to put the capacity. We have 3 state owned and 1 privately owned power companies all corporatised. What exactly do you have to convert to gasoline? Does Finland have large coal reserves? Â

There always are alternate options for transportation, but in reality, people buy their cars to travel them with. They buy the cars because they are practical and flexible.
I do see electrical vehicles being the future, but the transition period needs a solution, where hybrids look like the best solution so far.
Hybrids don't need catalytic converter, you can use for example combustion engine to run a charger (not a cheap solution either).

Surprisingly often, evinronment protection turns against itself. Yellowstone is a large area, so there would be enough room for power plants as well as for a national park.

Well, wind power is just about as epic fail here, as is solar power (and wind essentially is solar power). The wind power plants we have, (can) run max of 10% of time (if i recall) and the days there are enough wind for the plants, are few and mostly in the autumn. Inland is a bad place for wind power, since there's less wind that there is on a coast. One of the biggest problems with solar and wind power is, that when there's the biggest need for energy, there's no sun or wind.

To convert to gasoline, there would be turf. The groundtype found in swamps, which plant remains turn into in certain conditions, such as in variable temperature and lack of oxygen.
The yearly amount it renews, would be enough to replace the majority of oil that is used here in traffic (and in the future, all of it).

@bdbdbd: The thing with wind power (and energy in general) is diversification.

Wind doesn't always blow in the same place... but if you spread wind farms throughout a big area (such as the separate areas in the whole country), the peaks and bottoms should balance out to pretty smooth supply. The same principle can be applied to different energy sources resulting in even smoother supply (for example, combining wind with solar power in countries where that's possible).

Denmark generates around 20% of their electricity from wind power, and during strong winds (such as storms) this can go up to 80% if I recall correctly. That's a pretty big variation, but Denmark is a small country so they can't have such smooth supply I guess. If Denmark has a surplus at certain moments, they sell cheap electricity to Germany and make money while Germany saves money by shutting down some of their power plants.

An idea I've seen a while ago is that with smarter electrical grids spanning several countries (or states in the US), it's probably possible to make an automated system which buys or sells electricity based on current demand, supply and prices set by other regions. Different power stations can be shut down if they're not needed or not as profitable (i.e. efficient) as other power sources. For now these decisions are made manually, which probably isn't so bad either.

 

@NJ5: Yes, i do know the principle; wind always blows somewhere.

The Denmark example showed the problem with wind generators, which is unsteady supply.
Wind generators are a very good way to (partially) replace the existing coal power, but building the grid to rely on wind or building wind generators instead of something less CO2-emissive, like nuclear power, is pretty stupid.

Reminds me of Germany, that doesn't use nuclear power, but is still buying nuclear-produced electricity from Russia.

By the way, if i recall, EU is planning to build an EU-wide smartgrid, which definately makes renewable energy sources in the grid work more efficiently.