Reply With Quote
Would that I did.
I *do* have data, and the ability to make some reasonable conclusions based on that data as to what is likely/probable/certain/unlikely and what is not.
Why does that seem to mystify you?
By the by, here is a very interesting link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif
It shows the amount of oil being sucked into "nonfuel" needs.
It also shows that more than half of our energy usage is "lost", i.e. wasted as heat or similar, and a good chunk of *that* is from electrical resistance.
Seems to me from reading this that high-temperature superconducters should be a pretty high priority from an energy standpoint.
Reducing the wastage from electrical generation by just half would effectively more than double our electrical output.
Would that I did.
I *do* have data, and the ability to make some reasonable conclusions based on that data as to what is likely/probable/certain/unlikely and what is not.
Why does that seem to mystify you?
Interesting graph. I agree that we need to improve the efficiency of electrical transmission.
Start with the intro to the science here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-te...erconductivity
And look into the news articles.
This is part of what I mean by pumping some solid money into R & D.
Essentially what that means is that you can bury transmission lines to be able to cool them to the appropriate temperature ("high temperature" being something of a misnomer) using liquid nitrogen and capture a lot of that lost energy. What you gain would pretty much have to be more than the energy you would have to use to keep the lines cooled for it to be a net gain, but as you saw with the chart, there seems to be a lot of waste involved.
Also remember that a good chunk of the "lost" is simply waste heat from burning things. Most electrical generation boils water to make steam to turn turbines, and that generates heat that is kind of hard to capture and reuse.
One interesting greentech is that there are a lot of high-temperature industrial processes, such as firing bricks, or smelting processes that generate enormous amounts of waste heat. If you can tap into that heat, say by absorbing heat from exhaust from a smelter, in order to make electricity, you can basically get something from nothing. There is a guy with a start-up company that is attempting to sell this idea to private industry.
There are a number of "game-changing" ideas floating around out there.
Perhaps I should modify the OP to reflect some of that.
"generate enormous amounts of waste heat"
aka, co-generation. A very old idea.
Even low-grade heat from coal-fired and nuclear power stations could be used to warm greenhouses in temperate/northern la udes.
Paris has a huge garbage burning plant that provides piped hot water to 1000s of buildings, rather than piling up garbage in landfills.
Efficiency is great, but 70% of oil consumed in USA goes to transport, so if no subs ute is found for gasoline and diesel, the efficiencies elsewhere are welcome but marginal.
Actually according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif
Transportation consumes more like 82% of oil.
Much of that is highly inefficiently used, giving a lot of room for improvement.
Mass transit, i.e. trains, are vastly more energetically efficient for moving people around. We need to stop building roads and freeways, and start allocating transportation funds to transit projects. If oil production falls off as most experts are predicting, that means a lot of unused roads when gasoline is $15/gal.
Much of that will also shift to electrical demand for electric cars, in all liklihood. This might continue demand for those roads, but likely at much lower volumes for a number of factors.
The question will then go back to: Where do we get our electricity?
As noted above, and if you look at the energy graph linked in this post, there is a LOT of room for efficiency to take up the slack and let renewables pick up the rest of the uptick, will go a long way towards making us far more energy independent.
Ha, forget climate change. How about the cost of maintaining a military presence in the Persian Gulf?
The subsidies and tax breaks oil companies get are not incomplete knowledge. The amount of money we spend militarily in the Persian gulf each year isn't incomplete knowledge.
Then you go assuming that the shaky opinion based on incomplete knowledge is a fact and propose real policies that affect real people in very harsh ways. Then you're surprised when people resist.
People resist because people never want to pay more. It doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't because legitimacy doesn't matter when it comes to the American's pocketbook.
Estimates are made all the time on incomplete information. Modern businesses would be paralyzed if they waited until they knew everything perfectly to make a decision.
We are set to double the number of deepwater drilling rigs in the next ten years or so, according to the construction data I have seen.
At some point, some enterprising economist will put a dollar figure to the cost of the DeepWater Horizon spill. That isn't some vague "out there" estimation, but will be a pretty measurable externality to the cost of oil.
How many of *those* spills would you find acceptable? How many jobs do we sacrifice for the sake of continuing to use oil at the rate we have in the past?
That is the suck part about the argument I am making.
I am asking people to pay more in the short term to avoid big long term costs.
We seem to be conditioned to be short-sighted these days.
Yes, it's more efficient when it is full.
How often do you see the public transportation trains, buses, etc. full? I wouldn't be able to find an accurate number without more work than i'm willing to put in, but I do know in the long run it is less efficient, else here in the Portland area, rides wouldn't be so highly subsidized.
I take the MAX at times to downtown Portland to avoid the parking hassle and traffic. I can normally count the number of people on one hand in the same card except if there is an event at the Rose garden like a Blazer game, or during morning or afternoon rush hour.
http://www.google.com/search?q=mass+transit+efficiency
Interesting results for that google search.
http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/ener..._mt_saveE.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
Both articles make some good points, and indicate that mass transit isn't as efficient as people think.
I think I have to re-think my assumption that mass-transit is generally more energy-efficient than individual vehicles.
The big winner in the second article seems to be electric scooters.
Not that I want to be tooling around in an electric scooter during Texas' 100+ degree summers. that.
It seems you are fairly right about that.
Well, it still seems that your initial question is correct. "Now can we have some money for renewables?" If oil is priced without the subsidies, gas prices go up. If this happens, ridership on mass transit increases which moves mass transit's efficiency from even, to substantially better. This may also spur some of the missing innovation in transit's efficiencies over the last 30-40 years (sloped bus windshields come to mind). Additionally, perhaps more people will buy motorcycles and scooters. I have a honda rebel which gets me 65-70 MPG with me on it, or 75-80 MPG with my wife riding it (she weighs half of what I weigh), and this thing can move me at highway speeds (I have hit 83-84 MPH).
There is a good chunk of money being funneled into renewable energy research and companies now. I think there needs to be MUCH more.
What really needs to happen is that we start living closer to where we work.
Also, I should point out that tax dollars for roads are essentially subsidies for cars. The real free market solution for that is toll roads.
I am all for toll roads, actually. Let people/businesses pay the real costs.
Interesting way of looking at it, are all roads tolled roads, or just highways? Does every neighborhood have to have an HOA in order to have roads for their neighborhood. How does that system work? I am in no way attacking your idea, just asking for clarity. Anyway, the more money that is funneled to renewable energy, the easier the transition to electric cars will be.
Not really a formed idea of any sort on my part. I am just for them in general.
(sits back and thinks for a bit)
It would probably be impractical to toll people on city streets, so it would have to simply be highway.
It is conceivable, if not politically feasible, to have GPS locators or odometer sensors installed in all cars for tax purposes that track miles driven.
Drive more miles = pay more road usage charges.
The GPS would then track which company/city/etc owned the roads, and when you paid the charges, it would allocate accordingly.
Toll roads on major arteries is OK with the radio-tags in the toll booths, but the best way to tax road usage is tax on fuel, which discourages road usage, encourages fuel efficiency, and encourages switching to electric or other energy sources.
Yoni, WC, JackS, MiamiH could make a fortune blowing hot air into tanks for compressed air cars.
I agree here, but how do you adjust to ever increasing amounts of electric cars?
LOL@ more taxing.
I play golf. I play so much golf that I bought a golf cart to save in golf cart fees. A little over a year after I bought one like so many others did, almost every golf course changed golf cart fees to golf path fees. Same price as using their golf cart. It's all about money.
The dems leading the charge donot care about climate control, global warming, whatever enviromental bull they are selling so that they can make a buck . See Al Gore. It's all about making them money. Keep on spewing nonsense. It's funny.
These trends will happen regardless of whether or not "global warming" exists, and will be caused by simple economics and physics.
Either you want to get out ahead of the trend, and make your country more compe ive globally... or you don't. Which is it?
FYI Global warming does not exist. My golf cart story is caused by greed.
I do! Drill baby drill!Either you want to get out ahead of the trend, and make your country more compe ive globally... or you don't. Which is it?
Let me know when the MIT geeks make a car as efficient and cost savings as oil does.
How does that make us more compe ive?
only a pussy would use a golf cart. lol
You really don't know?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
