On Oil and Taxes

[RandomGuy]

"more oil supply" is a right-wing ideological rigidity that, as always, makes right-wingers as stupid as ever. Totally "faith based" oil bull .

A bit more acrimonious than I would normally choose, but essentially correct.

That is the problem with a lot of "conservative" thinking, in my view. Such thinking looks to the past and attempts to preserve it, and is sometimes very ill-suited to dealing with the one constant of the universe: change.

100 years ago it was "conservative" to play up horse-drawn carriages over those noisy "alternative" vehicles with their exploding engines.

[RandomGuy]

A bit more acrimonious than I would normally choose, but essentially correct.

That is the problem with a lot of "conservative" thinking, in my view. Such thinking looks to the past and attempts to preserve it, and is sometimes very ill-suited to dealing with the one constant of the universe: change.

100 years ago it was "conservative" to play up horse-drawn carriages over those noisy "alternative" vehicles with their exploding engines.

I can see how it would have gone:

"We don't need to spend money on all these new-fangled technologies, if the government would just let us put horse stables next to schools!"

[Wild Cobra]

Do you realize that the chip inside a smartcard is entirely contained right on top of the contacts, and it's not flexible at all? The rest of the card is plastic.
Try this: With an old smartcard you don't use anymore, heat it up right around the contacts, then bend it where the contacts are. The chip should come flying right out.

I've worked in the Silicon Process Industry for nine years as a enginerring technician for the CMP process on 200 mm wafers. I have seen how flexible silicon is. I never meant to conver the idea it's like plastic, but it does have some bend to it before it breaks. Plenty of flexibility when done right and it can be adhered to other materials with limited flexibility.

[ElNono]

I've worked in the Silicon Process Industry for nine years as a enginerring technician for the CMP process on 200 mm wafers. I have seen how flexible silicon is. I never meant to conver the idea it's like plastic, but it does have some bend to it before it breaks. Plenty of flexibility when done right and it can be adhered to other materials with limited flexibility.

Smartcards ICs have no flexibility whatsoever because they're entirely covered in epoxy. I've done a good amount of work in the past on 0.18µm smartcard ICs and older. It was one of my areas of expertise up until about 2 years ago.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you anything else. If I was allowed, I could talk about that stuff all day.
And yes, my education is in electronics.

[ElNono]

Hmm

Kilowatt hours/charge* charge/miles*dollars/kilowatt hour= dollars/mile

One google under "electric car charge" gets this:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5685

250 kilowatts*10 minutes= 2500 kilowatt minutes /60=41.67 kwhours

one charge=160 km=100 miles

rates for electricity in Austin, going forward:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...l?ana=from_rss

550 khw= $73.08 73.08/550=$0.1328 per kwh

.1328*41.67=$5.53 per charge, which gets you 100 miles, or

$0.0553 per mile. Call it 6 cents per mile.

Gasoline, assuming a 35mpg vehicle, is $4.00 per gallon 4/35= $.114, or call it $0.12 per mile

Seems like a winner.

BUT

Assume that the electric car costs a $20,000 premium over what a comparable gas-powered car would cost.

$20,000/.06= 333,333


MEANING:

It would take 333,333 miles driven before the electric car would "pay for itself" and be cheaper thatn the gas car in terms of Fuel, well beyond the normal life for any passenger vehicle.

LASTLY:

If the electric car cost the same as it's gasoline-equivalent, you should go for it for normal driving conditions, because the savings would eventually almost pay for the car itself.

Bear in mind that this was ONE calculation for ONE type of electric car using ONE utility rate that is likely understated. If you are using 41.6 kwh per DAY charging this car, your rates get a bit more expensive per unit of electricity, to my understanding, reducing the cost benefit.

BOTTOM LINE:

Still kind of a wash, but electric cars are getting there. Give oil another decade of record per barrel increases, and utilities installing a lot more renewable generating sources, and the equation WILL heavily favor the electric vehicle.

My grandchildern will not be driving gasoline-engine cars, except when their grampa let's them play with his old museum piece.

I'm sure electric cars are not, at this stage, the most solid cars, especially when you talk about new technologies. But one extra nicety about electric cars is that they don't need as many moving parts as gas cars, thus reducing the amount of wear and tear on such components. There's also the oil, filters, coolant, oxygen sensors, water pump, catalytic converter, mufflers, and probably some more stuff I'm forgetting that are not required at all in an electric car, and thus reduce considerably the maintenance necessary on them.

[Wild Cobra]

For the sake of this thread, I'll only address this from an economic perspective, without any input of my personal opinion on the matter.

If we were able to supply enough oil for our own needs and do so economically, then there would be no need for import restrictions or quotas, because imports would not be able to compete on price and would never enter our market.

Bull . As a world commodity, you have to consider world supply and demand rather than USA supply and demand unless you place restrictions. For what you say to work, we would have to be able to produce enough more oil than just our needs, unless you think oil companies are going to take a loss of potential sales.

Now, if you wanted to prevent this domestic oil (which by definition would be price advantaged to other foreign sources) from leaving our market, then an export quota would do the trick. However, it comes at a cost. In this scenario, our domestic price would be lower than the world price, and domestic suppliers would want to export their oil to obtain a higher price for their good or service. Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment, which in turn would result in a flight of capital from these domestic oil companies (who wants to invest in a company that earns sub-market rates of return?), this less investment and less domestic production until the domestic market equalizes to the world market.

"Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment"

What? They are not forced to sell at a loss. They are confined to the USA market, and will still make a profit as compe ion allows. They will get less than on the world market. They will still make a reasonable profit. When they are forced to buy at $138 per barrel and cannot drill oil for under $50 per barrel, our prices will remain high. If we open more supply domestically, much of it will be cheap, some will be more than $50. It comes back to supply and demand in the market.

If your objective (again, back to keeping an eye on the objective) is to reduce the amount of oil we import, the only realistic way (short of discovering trillions of barrels of economically viable oil under a rock in Arizona somewhere) is to reduce demand for oil domestically.

You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists? A little bit here like 2 years worth from ANWR, more off the coast of Florida, some here, there, everywhere. Pretty soon these numbers add up to more than 20 years worth at reasonable costs. By then we are far more likely to be ready for a hydrogen economy or something else. Maybe even cold fusion.

In the meantime, I feel inclined to ask, what is it about importing oil that really bothers people, especially considering where 70% of those imports come from?

Most our imports come from Canada. I assume you mean from countries that sponsor terrorism, or do you mean Arab countries? Persian Gulf countries only supply 21% of our imports. Check out this link from the EIA.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow, I can tell you know very little about rechargeable batteries. Li-Ion is what's mostly used since they don't have the memory issues of old nickel batteries. They are fully recyclable, and their components can be reused to make new batteries.
Do a google search for Lithium Ion battery disposal.

Aren't they still limited to three years of reliable life? Then it's a class 9 material hazard also! I only saw a 100,000 mile plus serviceability for the Tesla. No years given. I have never heard of a lithium ion batter than can be left in practical service for more than three years. Have you?

This just shows your ignorance on the subject. Please do some reading, then we'll talk about it. And FWIW, current cars have plenty of Chinese components and plastics that are not biodegradable.

Really? Did you ever look a how much that power level of batteries cost? Have the prices come down yet with lifecycles more than ten years? Who's responsible for recycling them, and will there be a fee, or a refund? I may be ignorant of the latest advances, but I don't believe they are of a nature to make it practical yet. I am speaking of HAZMAT class 9 material. Not imported plastics.

Really? Natural Gas is a hazardous waste material? News to me. Now if you would at least bothered to follow the Honda link I provided and did a little reading, you wouldn't sound like a complete ignorant on the matter.

I guess that didn't come out right. We don't have enough natural gas to supply hydrogen for mass marketed hydrogen cars, or even fuel cells that might work directly off CH4. If we go to a hydrogen fuel, we will have to go to the expensive means of aquiring enough hydrogen unless we stop caring about the environment. There just isn't enough methane.

I did explain that somewhere didn't I? I know I meant to.

Hybrids use batteries too, in case you were not aware.
The biggest hurdle with electric cars has nothing to do with the environment. These are not alkaline batteries we're talking about here. The biggest hurdle was to have the technology to be able to secure a big enough Li-Ion battery against heat and or fire. Read up n the Tesla page on how they achieved that.

You should do some searched on the environmental impact of making the batteries for hybrid cars. We buy them from countries that don't care. How much does it raise the cost to make them green? As for the Tesla, what's the cheapest spin-off we might see? Isn't that a $100,000 car?

I do know far more than you give me credit. You shouldn't jump to conclusions with me. I don't just ramble away on a subject without having at least a good understanding of it. I have yet to see anything on battery technology that makes them practical for the consumer market to such a degree. Cost and long term durability. How long do they last before all the batteries need to be replaced anyway? Did they cover that?

[scott]

Bull . As a world commodity, you have to consider world supply and demand rather than USA supply and demand unless you place restrictions. For what you say to work, we would have to be able to produce enough more oil than just our needs, unless you think oil companies are going to take a loss of potential sales.

The foundations of trade are based on comparative advantage. I'll repeat my previous statement, because I don't think you followed it:

"If we were able to supply enough oil for our own needs and do so economically, then there would be no need for import restrictions or quotas, because imports would not be able to compete on price and would never enter our market."

Assuming no restrictions on imports or exports, for the US to be self-sufficient on oil, it by definition would mean that domestic crude were comparatively advantaged against the next best alternative. This is the basic law of international trade, and isn't really up for debate. If we had a comparative advantage, we, by definition would become a net exporter.

"Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment"

What? They are not forced to sell at a loss. They are confined to the USA market, and will still make a profit as compe ion allows. They will get less than on the world market. They will still make a reasonable profit. When they are forced to buy at $138 per barrel and cannot drill oil for under $50 per barrel, our prices will remain high. If we open more supply domestically, much of it will be cheap, some will be more than $50. It comes back to supply and demand in the market.

By placing export restrictions you are, again, by definition forcing domestic companies to incur an economic loss (this is not the same as an accounting loss, this means they are selling at a price less than their next best alternative) by not allowing them to sell on the world market for a higher price. You even said it: "they will get less than on the world market". That is the definition of being forced to take an economic loss.

You make a lot of other assumptions here. Who is forced to buy at $138/barrel? No one is forced to do anything. Also, you need to seperate in your mind the cost to extract oil and the economic value of extracted oil. You also need to revisit your assumptions as to the costs to extract, not just in terms of the direct monetary cost but the negative externalities associated with new production.

Part of the reason oil companies can and will invest in new projects, is because they yield high returns. Yet, you want to limit the profitability of domestic oil companies, which would immediately limit their ability to invest in these projects. So you've bit off your nose in spite of your face, essentially.

Essentially this "open for exploration and limit exports" plan is you calling for the Government to bail out your (and the rest of America's) addiction for oil, which is ironic in a couple of ways. Unfortunately, your idea simply does not fit within the framework of basic economic theory.

You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists? A little bit here like 2 years worth from ANWR, more off the coast of Florida, some here, there, everywhere. Pretty soon these numbers add up to more than 20 years worth at reasonable costs. By then we are far more likely to be ready for a hydrogen economy or something else. Maybe even cold fusion.

With all due respect, I am pretty sure I am significantly more up to date on estimated oil reserves in this country (perhaps more than anyone on this forum) as I am (currently) in the industry and this is precisely the sort of thing I get paid to know.

There is a significant difference between estimated oil reserves, proven oil reserves and economically extractable oil reserves.

We are capable of being self-sufficient, but that is true at any level of supply. If we could only supply 100 barrels a day, we could still be self-sufficient... we would just have to increase price to the point where demand were limited to 100 barrels a day.

I am not making an assumption, I am speaking with extreme confidence that at current levels of demand and prices at or below current levels, the United States is physically unable to be self-sufficient. You can argue otherwise until you are blue in the face, but it wouldn't make it any more true, it would just mean you believe in something that isn't true.

Most our imports come from Canada. I assume you mean from countries that sponsor terrorism, or do you mean Arab countries? Persian Gulf countries only supply 21% of our imports. Check out this link from the EIA.

I know exactly where our imported oil comes from, in fact I posted a list of the top importers just on the last page. Thanks though.

[ElNono]

Aren't they still limited to three years of reliable life? Then it's a class 9 material hazard also! I only saw a 100,000 mile plus serviceability for the Tesla. No years given. I have never heard of a lithium ion batter than can be left in practical service for more than three years. Have you?

Limited life is a problem. I did say more battery research is needed.
And BTW, Lithium-Ion batteries are classified as non-hazardous material by the federal government (link).

Also, as the Tesla site states:
"Unlike other batteries that came before them, Lithium ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. However, dumping these batteries in the trash would be throwing money away. Even a completely dead battery pack contains valuable, recoverable materials that can be sold back to recycling companies for cash."

Only when Air shipping is involved they're classified as class 9 material.
Let's not forget other class 9 materials, so we know what we're talking about here:
- Air Bag inflators
- Asbestos
- Dry Ice
- PCBs
- Wheel chairs/electric cars

Really? Did you ever look a how much that power level of batteries cost? Have the prices come down yet with lifecycles more than ten years? Who's responsible for recycling them, and will there be a fee, or a refund? I may be ignorant of the latest advances, but I don't believe they are of a nature to make it practical yet. I am speaking of HAZMAT class 9 material. Not imported plastics.

Cost will come down once there's mass production. That's just simple economics. And Lithium-Ion technology itself is being improved at a fast paced rate. Here's a list of recent advances in the field: LINK
As far as recycling, you can visit: LINK
This might change, due to the distinctive size and volume of the batteries used in cars, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of refund involved (but it's really just guessing and even maybe wishful thinking).

I guess that didn't come out right. We don't have enough natural gas to supply hydrogen for mass marketed hydrogen cars, or even fuel cells that might work directly off CH4. If we go to a hydrogen fuel, we will have to go to the expensive means of aquiring enough hydrogen unless we stop caring about the environment. There just isn't enough methane.

I did explain that somewhere didn't I? I know I meant to.

I kind of doubt that. I mean, Honda's generator that runs on natural gas provides both electricity and heat for a whole house, plus hydrogen for a car.
According to them (caveat emptor) it reduces energy costs by 50%. LINK
There's no shortage of coal as far as I know. I also don't see a shortage of natural gas. Heck, 37% of electricity produced in California (biggest source) comes from natural gas. Now, I explicitly stated I really don't give a darn about the environment. But your stance of lets drill everywhere for oil, but when it comes to hydrogen lets take care of the environment is really hypocritical.

You should do some searched on the environmental impact of making the batteries for hybrid cars. We buy them from countries that don't care. How much does it raise the cost to make them green? As for the Tesla, what's the cheapest spin-off we might see? Isn't that a $100,000 car?

At least we already have a recycling program in place from Li-Ion batteries used extensively everywhere (laptops, phones, PDAs, etc). We buy many many things from countries that don't care, including innumerable car components. Like those class 9 hazard Air Bag inflators mentioned above.
They already announced their next car, estimated MSRP $50000. LINK
Obviously, if you can mass produce, you can dramatically reduce the price.
I'm actually shocked it 'only' costs 100K for the Roadster, considering they only built 100 cars.

I do know far more than you give me credit. You shouldn't jump to conclusions with me. I don't just ramble away on a subject without having at least a good understanding of it. I have yet to see anything on battery technology that makes them practical for the consumer market to such a degree. Cost and long term durability. How long do they last before all the batteries need to be replaced anyway? Did they cover that?

I never claimed that battery technology is ready to roll. I can actually quote myself saying battery technology needs more R&D.
That said, I'm going back to the original point: We keep giving tax dollars handouts to Detroit to build Oil-based solutions. Is that how we're encouraging our independence from oil? Wouldn't an incentive to companies working on truly oil-free solutions make more sense?
Even if it doesn't pan out for another 5 years. I mean, the DOE just handed out 30 Million to the Detroit cartel to 'entice' them to build pluggable hybrids by 2012. That's still 4 years down the road anyways.

[ElNono]

The foundations of trade are based on comparative advantage. I'll repeat my previous statement, because I don't think you followed it:

...(edited for brevity)...

I know exactly where our imported oil comes from, in fact I posted a list of the top importers just on the last page. Thanks though.

What do you think would happen if we were to drill everywhere and, let's say, be able to produce an important amount of oil, but actually export it to the global market instead of doing a local supply?
Part of me thinks that other oil producing nations might want to reduce the price to compete with one extra player (with significant economic and political muscle, I might add), but another part of me thinks they know our Oil reserves are not big enough to sustain the output, and thus they might not back down, and take the hit temporarily. Your thoughts?

[Wild Cobra]

Limited life is a problem. I did say more battery research is needed.
And BTW, Lithium-Ion batteries are classified as non-hazardous material by the federal government (link).

This is for small batteries. The batteries exempted have very little lithium in them like the L91 and L92 button style batteries. The limit is 12 grams per cell and also have the restriction that they cannot explode if shorted and sealed as not to react with water.
.

Also, as the Tesla site states:
"Unlike other batteries that came before them, Lithium ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. However, dumping these batteries in the trash would be throwing money away. Even a completely dead battery pack contains valuable, recoverable materials that can be sold back to recycling companies for cash."

So, these batteries have less than 12 grams per cell?

Only when Air shipping is involved they're classified as class 9 material.
Let's not forget other class 9 materials, so we know what we're talking about here:
- Air Bag inflators
- Asbestos
- Dry Ice
- PCBs
- Wheel chairs/electric cars

Class 9 is a miscellaneous class. Each item in the class has it's own unique risks. In the case of lithium, it's the quan y. It is reactive with water and can explode. Single small batteries are no big deal. Take the thousands of cells in an electric car, and the concentration in a land fill becomes excessive.

[ElNono]

This is for small batteries. The batteries exempted have very little lithium in them like the L91 and L92 button style batteries. The limit is 12 grams per cell and also have the restriction that they cannot explode if shorted and sealed as not to react with water.
So, these batteries have less than 12 grams per cell?

They have 0.6 grams per cell. They use standard 18650 cells, as used in phones, laptops, etc. Here's their battery white paper: LINK

Class 9 is a miscellaneous class. Each item in the class has it's own unique risks. In the case of lithium, it's the quan y. It is reactive with water and can explode. Single small batteries are no big deal. Take the thousands of cells in an electric car, and the concentration in a land fill becomes excessive.

Even if cut and exposed to water, these cells are rated to be safe. Here's one link: LINK
Notice that these cells come with a protection circuit that shuts them off if they detect a thermal runaway: LINK

A thermal runaway can cause smoke, flames or an explosion. That's why they designed their battery pack with that in mind, even in case the protection circuit fails. Again, refer to their white paper above.
About pollution, Tesla includes the price of battery recycling in the price of the car, according to their website. So those don't go to a land fill, they get recycled and reused on new batteries / stainless steel products.

Also notice that most current hybrid cars do NOT use Li-Ion battery, but NiMH, which are way more pollutant as they contain much more heavy metals in them. Now supposedly this is because Li-Ion life expectancy is 3 years, more or less, but if you ever owned a cell phone with NiMH batteries, you know the memory issues in those batteries end up being a problem just about the same 3 year time span.

My other concern about this, is how far back are we falling in these technological areas against other countries. Honda debuted the Insight and Toyota followed with the popular Prius, back in 2000. Ford had to license technology from the Prius from them to bring the Escape hybrid to market six years later.
And now GM is starting to sell faux hybrids, like the 08 Malibu, which they call 'mild hybrid', that only gain you 2 mpg over the regular gas model. (link)
I just don't see ourselves trying hard enough to really end this foreign oil dependency.

[RandomGuy]

Bull . As a world commodity, you have to consider world supply and demand rather than USA supply and demand unless you place restrictions. For what you say to work, we would have to be able to produce enough more oil than just our needs, unless you think oil companies are going to take a loss of potential sales.


"Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment"

What? They are not forced to sell at a loss. They are confined to the USA market, and will still make a profit as compe ion allows. They will get less than on the world market. They will still make a reasonable profit. When they are forced to buy at $138 per barrel and cannot drill oil for under $50 per barrel, our prices will remain high. If we open more supply domestically, much of it will be cheap, some will be more than $50. It comes back to supply and demand in the market.


You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists? A little bit here like 2 years worth from ANWR, more off the coast of Florida, some here, there, everywhere. Pretty soon these numbers add up to more than 20 years worth at reasonable costs. By then we are far more likely to be ready for a hydrogen economy or something else. Maybe even cold fusion.


Most our imports come from Canada. I assume you mean from countries that sponsor terrorism, or do you mean Arab countries? Persian Gulf countries only supply 21% of our imports. Check out this link from the EIA.

Dude, you are out of your league when it comes to trying to argue with scott here.

1) You don't seem to be understanding what the guy is saying, so about half of the points in this post are in response to something he didn't really say or mean.

2) You obviously don't seem to have a grasp of the economic points he is making. Have you taken macro and micro-economics courses? Much of what he is outlining is straight out of macro-economics 101.

You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists?

He has. He also knows that 100% of the oil in these places isn't technically or economically viable. That is one of his maint points and what you are missing because of your confirmation bias. Sure you can try to extract all of the oil, but if the last barrel of oil someplace literally costs $10,000 to extract, why bother?

[johnsmith]

Dude, you are out of your league when it comes to trying to argue with scott here.

1) You don't seem to be understanding what the guy is saying, so about half of the points in this post are in response to something he didn't really say or mean.

2) You obviously don't seem to have a grasp of the economic points he is making. Have you taken macro and micro-economics courses? Much of what he is outlining is straight out of macro-economics 101.



He has. He also knows that 100% of the oil in these places isn't technically or economically viable. That is one of his maint points and what you are missing because of your confirmation bias. Sure you can try to extract all of the oil, but if the last barrel of oil someplace literally costs $10,000 to extract, why bother?

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?

[RandomGuy]

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?

[Randomguy,] you fail to acknowledge I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences.

Meh.

People can have opinions, but when they attempt to argue oil economics with a guy who has a Phd in economics who specializes in analysing oil, well, that to me is just silly if you don't have a solid base of understanding in the field.

Cobra is something of a chemist, and I would not bother to call him on chemical reactions, and would mostly take his word when it comes to that specialty, just as I don't try to second guess my brother the mechanic when he tells me what is wrong with my car.

I only really "talk down" to people who are simply intellectually dishonest. If you can't do the following, then you get no respect from me: 1) Admit the other guy might have a point. 2) Admit you might be wrong 3) Fail to acknowledge or dismiss outright points that might not favor your view point. Ideological blinders serve nothing but one's ego.

[RandomGuy]

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?

If you make an argument that you supposedly base on "economics", but violates basic fundamentals of economics, should I not point that out?

[DarkReign]

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?

We have a sighting!!!

Where you been?

[johnsmith]

If you make an argument that you supposedly base on "economics", but violates basic fundamentals of economics, should I not point that out?

Fair enough. I take back my comment.

[johnsmith]

We have a sighting!!!

Where you been?

I've been mostly lurking as I don't have as much time to argue in here anymore.

[RandomGuy]

Fair enough. I take back my comment.

No problem. I posted my bit before I read scott's reply, which saved me from having to make the same arguments/points.

(click on the little arrow to go to the response I refer to.

I have taken about 30 credit hours of economics and finance courses, mostly at the graduate (advanced) level, so I understand scott and can speak with some authority when it comes to the topic. scott knows waaaaay more about the oil industry than I do, though, and probably a bit more about economics, having a full degree (or two!) in the subject, I would imagine.

[DarkReign]

I've been mostly lurking as I don't have as much time to argue in here anymore.

Same. Welcome back, however brief.

[Wild Cobra]

They have 0.6 grams per cell. They use standard 18650 cells, as used in phones, laptops, etc. Here's their battery white paper: LINK

Cool. That's gives me a new found respect for the work done here. The car can possible be cost effective once they take it to a low cost vehicle base. What did they use, a Lotus?

For me, to go mass market with such a concept still has limitations doe to shifting form fuel to electricity. So much more electricity is needed. We only use small amounts of electricity in our lives daily. Let's assume 1000 kilo-watt-hours per month. Take a low side average of driving 500 miles per month. At best, that would be about 430 kilo-watt-hours used monthly. As far as I know, most people drive about 15,000 miles a year. With that, we have more than doubled household consumption of electricity. This is fine if electricity can be kept at current prices, but with the increased demand, we will have severely increased pricing.

I like the idea if these electric cars. I just don't see this feasible until we build nuclear energy in abundance. I like these cars better than fuel cell cars. Get contaminated hydrogen once, and the fuel cell would need replaced. I agree people will generally recycle the batteries.

I am also concerned about the nominal 10% loss of storage capacity annually that plague this type of battery. It looks like these cars can be compe ive with internal combustion engines as production increases. What would the cost be to replace the batter pack every three years, or even five?

Battery like and electrical demand. Will this be solved?

Still, until such breakthroughs, we should not block the production of oil in the USA.

[Wild Cobra]

Dude, you are out of your league when it comes to trying to argue with scott here.

1) You don't seem to be understanding what the guy is saying, so about half of the points in this post are in response to something he didn't really say or mean.

2) You obviously don't seem to have a grasp of the economic points he is making. Have you taken macro and micro-economics courses? Much of what he is outlining is straight out of macro-economics 101.

No, I understand the basic concepts of economics. I just didn't read what he said right. Supply and demand rules, and there are market borders that apply and can be shaped.

[RandomGuy]

Cool. That's gives me a new found respect for the work done here. The car can possible be cost effective once they take it to a low cost vehicle base. What did they use, a Lotus?

For me, to go mass market with such a concept still has limitations doe to shifting form fuel to electricity. So much more electricity is needed. We only use small amounts of electricity in our lives daily. Let's assume 1000 kilo-watt-hours per month. Take a low side average of driving 500 miles per month. At best, that would be about 430 kilo-watt-hours used monthly. As far as I know, most people drive about 15,000 miles a year. With that, we have more than doubled household consumption of electricity. This is fine if electricity can be kept at current prices, but with the increased demand, we will have severely increased pricing.

I like the idea if these electric cars. I just don't see this feasible until we build nuclear energy in abundance. I like these cars better than fuel cell cars. Get contaminated hydrogen once, and the fuel cell would need replaced. I agree people will generally recycle the batteries.

I am also concerned about the nominal 10% loss of storage capacity annually that plague this type of battery. It looks like these cars can be compe ive with internal combustion engines as production increases. What would the cost be to replace the batter pack every three years, or even five?

Battery like and electrical demand. Will this be solved?

Still, until such breakthroughs, we should not block the production of oil in the USA.

I have yet to see economical nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is another expensive boondoggle from everything I have seen.

Please list the nuclear power plants worldwide that have been built without massive government subsidies. (hint: it would be a VERY short list)

[RandomGuy]

The thing I dislike about nuclear power:

It is simply something that "conservatives" use to poke "environmentalists" with to irritate them.

I am for what works, and I can make some pretty effective arguments for and against different sources of energy, and nukes just don't cut it for a variety of reasons.

Will we increase our reliance on nuclear power at some point? Perhaps, but I doubt the power forces of NIMBY would choose nuclear over other forms of energy.

All I have to do is ask ONE question of any given community or state:

Would you rather build 10 MW of generating power from renewables at 5 times the cost of nuclear, or build the nuclear generators and have them in your back yard?

It doesn't matter whether those nukes are the safest thing in the world. Fear is NOT rational. I know modern nuclear reactor designs are safer than anything that has gone before.

If your argument is based on the safety of nuclear power, you lose before you start, so find something else.