The oil belongs to them. They're entitled to triple the price if they want!

[BillyTheMountain]

NYTimes front page today: "To many Americans, oil companies like Exxon Mobil or Chevron appear all powerful, pocketing huge profits as energy costs soar. But in other countries around the world, huge oil prices are also making life considerably harder for big oil companies."

It's a good idea, because drivers and home heaters are captive customers. Got huge profits now? Even huger profits if we quadruple the price!! :D

[monkeyman]

How would huge oil prices make life hard for the big oil companies?
:confused:

[unisteve]

People tend to buy less of stuff if it's more expensive.

[john_childs]

How would huge oil prices make life hard for the big oil companies?
:confused:
Bolivia has decided that they can do with a little of that big profits action for themselves, rather than sharing with the big oil companies. That causes a problem for big oil. It causes risk and risk causes the oil companies to charge more to cover that risk.

Google News Search for Bolivia nationalization (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=nationalization+bolivia&btnG=Search+News)

Picking a few articles from that search:

Opinion piece:
Public anger toward big oil is misdirected (http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=133442)
Analysts estimate that as much as $20 of today's crude price results from risk associated with future supply. Dependence upon foreign sources of supply controlled by the leaders of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela, some of which are unfriendly to the United States, adds to risk and therefore price. Bolivia is the latest country to announce nationalization of its oil resources, following Russia and Venezuela's lead.

Leaders Back Bolivia Gas Nationalization (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1925804)

Bolivia says to forge ahead with nationalization (http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=145192)

[john_childs]

It's a good idea, because drivers and home heaters are captive customers. Got huge profits now? Even huger profits if we quadruple the price!! :D
We don't need to regulate prices in that way.

That doesn't solve the real problem and ignores the source problem.

The solution is to wean ourselves from oil as a primary energy source. We can do it with current technology. Electric cars and electric plug-in hybrid cars will cut down on the need for oil. But to make that work we need to wean our electricity generation from oil and natural gas as well. Big investments in nuclear power and possibly coal gasification (http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html) with appropriate CO2 capture technology so we don't belch all the CO2 back into the air. Use the nuclear electricity and coal gasification electricity to power our cars and heat our homes and pop our popcorn. Simple really. We have the technology to do it. Now who has the cojones to implement?

Solves two problems: our dependency on oil and the global warming threat. Seems like a no brainer.

So who cares about big oil profits now. They're going to be a has-been technology soon enough.

[madmattunipro]

Capitalism is all about free enterprise, so we shouln't really regulate the prices. Problem is oil companies have a monopoly, something that was seen as a problem for a capatalistic society from the very start.

High oil prices suck, but as long as people are willing to pay the price, it will remain high.

Switching from oil as a primary energy scource is possible, but not the most probable at the moment. Here in Alberta, heating with natural gas is still cheaper than with electricity. And our entire transportation system is carried by the oil industry, other technologies are still not advanced enough to replace gasoline. The switch would probably be more expensive to the consumer than taking action(maybe a temporary boycott?) to lower the price of what we have.

Although the changes will occur, they will probably be more gradual than popular mechanics leads us to believe. Oil will be around for a while.

[Jerrick]

Luckily for me, I ride my unicyle way more than a car, so gas prices arnt a problem for me, yet.

[john_childs]

Here in Alberta, heating with natural gas is still cheaper than with electricity.
Canada is a big producer of natural gas. I don't believe you have to import any of the natural gas you use so it's all local stuff.

We have simply got to reduce our economies reliance on oil. It's going to bite us soon with dwindling supply and high high prices. Not to mention the issues with greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

If panic from $3+ (US) gas prices per gallon (0.878 Canadian dollars / liter (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US%243+%2F+gal+in+CAD+%2F+liter&btnG=Search)) is what it takes to get people to take action and actively endorse alternatives like plug-in hybrids then that's all the better. Heck, higher prices would be better to speed that transformation in thinking forward. We don't need the Congress getting involved and artificially lowering prices or blaming the oil companies.

Plug-in hybrids with electricity from nuclear, coal gasification (with CO2 emissions control), green energy and other non-oil electricity generation is the answer. Nuclear is going to be the most cost effective way to generate the additional electricity (and clean electricity) needed for the plug-in cars.

We need to save our limited oil supplies for jet planes and other vehicles that can't go green.

This isn't about being a tree hugger. This is about economic survival in the near (your generation) future. Saving the environment from global warming is a side effect.

Here's a neat summary of what's about to happen: The Oil Age Poster (http://www.oilposter.org/index.html)

[steveyo]

...We have simply got to reduce our economies reliance on oil. It's going to bite us soon with dwindling supply and high high prices. Not to mention the issues with greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.
...
This isn't about being a tree hugger. This is about economic survival in the near (your generation) future. Saving the environment from global warming is a side effect.You're right, though you are starting to sound downright left. What you said needs to seep into US citizens' consciousness enough to make the a$$holes in Washington stand up and toughen mileage requirements.

[unisteve]

Fossil fuels NEED to become expensive before most people will stop using them. Because you can't afford something is a good reason to cut down on using it.

[Brian MacKenzie]

If panic from $3+ (US) gas prices per gallon (0.878 Canadian dollars / liter (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US%243+%2F+gal+in+CAD+%2F+liter&btnG=Search))

I remember the days of it only being $.87! It's ususally been about $1.10, highest I've seen after Katrina was $1.44

Luckily we don't drive all that much, I sure do like working from home!

[unisteve]

I've seen gas prices of more than €1.50/L here in France. That's like $2 CAD a litre.

North Americans can stop whining about gas prices now.

[Brian MacKenzie]

North Americans can stop whining about gas prices now.

I wonder who has the highest prices?

[Brian MacKenzie]

I wonder who has the highest prices?

drivers all over Europe, where fuel prices are the highest in the world: a gallon of gas in Amsterdam now costs $7.13, compared with just $2.61 in America.

[Gilby]

It's a good idea, because drivers and home heaters are captive customers. Got huge profits now? Even huger profits if we quadruple the price!! :D You heat your home with this foreign oil? The US and Canada are huge producers of natural gas.

Meanwhile, higher costs of oil will only drive the production of alternatives, and speed up my buying of a plug-in hybrid, which means hacking a Toyota Prius, highlander or 400h to have stronger batteries and run mostly off electric power... you'd only have to fill up the tank with gas every 1500-2000 miles. If cost of electricity got high, the solar panel industry will boom and we'd start putting them on all our roofs. A community going together to invest in wind power would also be more common.

The gas price at the pump is too cheap because our income tax is financing too much of the oil supply.

[Unimichael]

I'm not sure electricity is the clean alternative we have been lead to believe. Electricity is produced by either oil, coal or gas fired plants. (And nukes in some locals). Energy is used to produce energy, and you can't end up with more energy than you've started with. Much of the energy is lost as heat...
"Clean Electricity" (IMHO) is PR (or BS, if you prefer)

[DigitalDave]

IIRC ... they posted a 90 BILLION dollar profit last year.

They say it's needed to repair damages from Katrina, and 'continued developement'.

I say it's to fill thier pockets.


I say,,, they divide it up equally to the homeless and hungry.

That should wake them up.

[BillyTheMountain]

You heat your home with this foreign oil? The US and Canada are huge producers of natural gas.

The gas price at the pump is too cheap because our income tax is financing too much of the oil supply.

Many homes in the USA use oil heat, which has been cheaper than naturally gas historically, and safer.

You keep saying your tax $$$ add to the oil magnates profits??

Not more than went to Haliburton's war profits, would you say?

So far, only Unisteve says oil magnates should grab more pure profit by tripling prices.

[Naomi]

The US and Canada are huge producers of natural gas.

.


So was the UK, although national demand has now exceeded national supply. So the UK is now part reliant on imported gas...which led to a shortage and price problem recently when foreign suppliers had a little problem .

It served to demonstrate that we cannot rely on government to control fuel. Their think tank solution to the UK's future energy supply, a solution published just after this gas supply problem, was that we should abandon nuclear and instead build more gas fired stations!


Nao

[Gilby]

You keep saying your tax $$$ add to the oil magnates profits?? No that's what you say.

I said that the price at the pump is low because of that. If tax money didn't pay it, we'd pay it at the pump, which would provide more competition in the energy industry for alternatives.

[BillyTheMountain]

No that's what you say.

I said that the price at the pump is low because of that. If tax money didn't pay it, we'd pay it at the pump, which would provide more competition in the energy industry for alternatives.

But if the pump price remained stable, and you didn't give them your tax $$$, their profits would dip. You're the only one mentioning tax $$$ for oil magnates, GILBY.

You're not saying (but you're hinting) that the powerful determine who gets your tax $$$, and the oil magnates are much more powerful than any energy alternative.

[Gilby]

You're not saying (but you're hinting) that the powerful determine who gets your tax $$$, and the oil magnates are much more powerful than any energy alternative. No, tax money is funding a lot of the supply channels. Such as military occupation in oil producing countries, etc.

[DigitalDave]

But if the pump price remained stable, and you didn't give them your tax $$$, their profits would dip. You're the only one mentioning tax $$$ for oil magnates, GILBY.

You're not saying (but you're hinting) that the powerful determine who gets your tax $$$, and the oil magnates are much more powerful than any energy alternative.


I commute by car ... If I commute into another county, I pay 20 cents less per gallon for gas, and 10 bucks less for a carton of cigs.
When I lived on the south side, I drove to Indiana for gas and cigs.

We are screwed nomatter ... just give up ...

It's all sin taxes ... if you a user ... you gotta pay

[BillyTheMountain]

No, tax money is funding a lot of the supply channels. Such as military occupation in oil producing countries, etc.

Oh. You're saying taxpayer $$$ funding military occupation in oil producing countries, etc. not only boost profits to Haliburton magnates, but also to oil magnates.

Are you happy about that?

It's not like we could divert tax money to fund a lot of the solar supply channels. But we could fund military occupation in nuclear producing countries, etc.....

[unisteve]

So far, only Unisteve says oil magnates should grab more pure profit by tripling prices.
I actually didn't say that. All I said is that people will only start caring when fuel gets cost-prohibitive (speaking about North Americans in particular).

You will note that I did not vote in your poll because both choices suck.

[U-Turn]

Oh. You're saying taxpayer $$$ funding military occupation in oil producing countries, etc. not only boost profits to Haliburton magnates, but also to oil magnates.

Are you happy about that?

It's not like we could divert tax money to fund a lot of the solar supply channels. But we could fund military occupation in nuclear producing countries, etc.....
We could take over Australia and put all the nuclear power plants there...

Oh, cool, and also we'd be able to get more Andrew Carter videos! *does a dance* :)

[Brian MacKenzie]

Oh, cool, and also we'd be able to get more Andrew Carter videos! *does a dance* :)


Don't worry, I've already been outsourcing :)

[U-Turn]

Don't worry, I've already been outsourcing :)
Arg! I still haven't seen twnr.

[Brian MacKenzie]

Arg! I still haven't seen twnr.


:eek: ?????

[U-Turn]

:(

[Brian MacKenzie]

:(


I never ordered a new 36" wheel, I gues we're even :)


But you ARE in it :)

[U-Turn]

I never ordered a new 36" wheel, I guess we're even :)I hope to see twnr someday! And if history is any indication, I'll see it many times.


But you ARE in it :)Uh oh! Can I do a global replace when I've lost 20 pounds?

[Borges]

I'm not sure electricity is the clean alternative we have been lead to believe. Electricity is produced by either oil, coal or gas fired plants. (And nukes in some locals). Energy is used to produce energy, and you can't end up with more energy than you've started with. Much of the energy is lost as heat...
"Clean Electricity" (IMHO) is PR (or BS, if you prefer)

If you want to prevent smog, electricity is good so in that sense it's clean. If you're after energy efficiency, diesel is the way to go.

[john_childs]

You're right, though you are starting to sound downright left.
Nah, If I was sounding Left I'd be complaining about oil company profits, how Halliburton is somehow involved in the high gasoline prices, and using words like disgorgement.

I'm not making arguments based on Left or Liberal philosophies. My opinions are more based on economic reasons and a Right thinking philosophy. It makes sense for economic and national security reasons. Phrase the reasons the right way and you can get the Bush administration to make positive environmental policies (if you consider nuclear power to be environmental).

Plus driving an electric plug-in hybrid would be fun. Electric cars can have great acceleration and be fun do drive for stop and go driving. The cars would be loads of fun to drive for typical regular driving situations.

[DigitalDave]

60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?channel=60Sunday) had a big article today on ethanol. (corn)

Brazil converted to ethanol. (sugar cane)

[Gilby]

I'm not sure electricity is the clean alternative we have been lead to believe. Electricity is produced by either oil, coal or gas fired plants. (And nukes in some locals). Energy is used to produce energy, and you can't end up with more energy than you've started with. Much of the energy is lost as heat...
"Clean Electricity" (IMHO) is PR (or BS, if you prefer)
Progress is being made, and we could combine a plug-in hybrid with the available options now to have a totally emission-free vehicle (assuming short travel distances where the gas is never used). The easiest way for me now would be to fill out a form and pay $0.02 per kWh extra (about a 33% premium) on my electric bill in which my electric company will provide me power via windsource. The downside is that it just shifts more of the dirty stuff on others, but if enough people do it, the electric company has to invest more in deploying the technology. The other option available now is to install solar panels on your property to produce your electricity, which is apparently not too economical yet, but something to look into.

[Gilby]

You will note that I did not vote in your poll because both choices suck. Agreed. It's be stupid to vote in this every answer is wrong poll.

[James_Potter]

It is their oil, so I believe they should be allowed to do anything with it they want. We (Americans, and humans in general) depend far too much on oil anyway, I think raising it to like $10/gallon might make people realize that automobiles are more trouble than they're worth.
Have any of you seen the movie End of Suburbia? I think thats what its called...its very interesting.

[john_childs]

I think raising it to like $10/gallon might make people realize that automobiles are more trouble than they're worth.

$10 per gallon would cause serious problems for the shipping/trucking industry. The prices for goods would rise considerably. The cost for shipping a unicycle from Unicycle.com would be more than the unicycle itself. Goods that have to be shipped long distances would become considerably more expensive.

$10/gallon would be more than just an inconvenience to our spread out suburbia lifestyle. It would make travel and shipping considerably more expensive. You don't want $10/gallon fuel.

[James_Potter]

Yes, the only good reason I see for low gas prices is shipping...high gas prices for trucks would probably be catastrophic in the long run. That's actually what the movie End of Suburbia is about...if oil gets almost all used up, then food and other necessities, including unicycles, would be very difficult to get. I can see a second Great Depression happening from this....

[Gilby]

$10 per gallon would cause serious problems for the shipping/trucking industry. The prices for goods would rise considerably. The cost for shipping a unicycle from Unicycle.com would be more than the unicycle itself. Goods that have to be shipped long distances would become considerably more expensive.

$10/gallon would be more than just an inconvenience to our spread out suburbia lifestyle. It would make travel and shipping considerably more expensive. You don't want $10/gallon fuel.

Not in an instant, but gradually, it'd be OK for the price to increase to that.

[James_Potter]

I just saw on the news a piece about Ethanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol), which is essentially fuel made from grain. Apparently Brazil has almost completely switched to using Ethanol, and experts thinks that it is possible for the USA to switch to using Ethanol within about five years. It would mean that the USA doesn't need oil from overseas anymore, because we can pretty much completely produce it within the country.

[BillyTheMountain]

If you want to prevent smog, electricity is good so in that sense it's clean. If you're after energy efficiency, diesel is the way to go.

If I'm not mistaken, they burn oil to produce electricity....

The other option available now is to install solar panels on your property to produce your electricity, which is apparently not too economical yet, but something to look into.

Interesting. Our community is trying to stop a stadium/tall building complex from being built by, among other tactics, calculating the $$ losses to future solar panel users, due to [get this] SHADOWS cast by the tall buildings.

Any environmental impact issues raised at community hearings and later found to be dealt with inadequately can be charged against the developer.

[entropy]

Plus driving an electric plug-in hybrid would be fun. Electric cars can have great acceleration and be fun do drive for stop and go driving. The cars would be loads of fun to drive for typical regular driving situations.
I can attest to this.

http://www.ume.maine.edu/solar/projects.htm

The page hasn't been updated in five years, but it's still mostly accurate (costs are now different though). I worked on and drove both cars. They were street legal and a blast to cruise in.

The "Phantom" was so powerful it was scary. You'd turn on the ignition, and hear a "click." And that's it. Silence.

You tap the accelerator, and it would take off like a rocket.

The frame is lined with lead-acid batteries (40), and stomping the accelerator dumped 1900 amps @ 120 volts directly to the motor - that's just shy of 1/4 Megawatt. DC. The tires, which were meant for a heavy pickup truck, would easily break free through fourth gear without ever popping the clutch.

The drivetrain was a DC forklift motor bolted to a 6-speed Camaro transmission, which kept things pretty cheap. The original chevy truck transmission couldn't handle the power and fell apart after about 150 miles.

The nice thing about electric motors is that they can take huge amounts of abuse, and will still last for about one million miles without ever losing their performance capabilities.

The only issue with the car was the weight - we used liquid lead-acid batteries. If we had gone with sealed lead-acid (they use acid gel instead of water), things would have been more than a bit lighter (and the performance a lot scarier).

[maestro8]

Simple really. We have the technology to do it. Now who has the cojones to implement?
It takes more than "having technology" to affect a change as large-scale as your proposing. It's not "really simple"... we're not just switching out what model of car we drive... many, many people need to change the way they think before they'll even begin to consider making the switch to hybrid / electric technology. Even then, there are other hurdles to clear, and one heck of a "ripple effect" that will happen thereafter.

What do you expect, for everyone just to "dump" their current automobile and buy a new car? All at once? With the used car market instantly saturated, no one will get any money for their old cars, and those who haven't sold won't want to after seeing the complete lack of return on their investment.

Certainly there will also be a class of "late adopters"... they exist for many classes of consumer devices... such as myself, I waited for a few years after digital cameras came out before buying one, and I still think I didn't wait long enough. Whenever the switch happens, there's going to be a good number of hold-outs. There'll also be those who refuse to switch, no matter how much "sense" it makes.

Aside from the positive impacts of a switch to hybrid / electric vehicles, there are also negative impacts. There's entire industries that will need to be fundamentally changed... for one, auto repair shops. There's going to be many auto technicians whose skills will need to be updated. Shops will need to be retooled. Some shops will be ahead of the curve, but who's going to trust anyone but the dealership with a brand new technology?

Furthermore, what happens to the backyard mechanic? Is there any remote hope that any of these new cars will be user servicable? I saved a lot of money through college wrenching on my own car... that doesn't sound like much of a possibility in an all-electric future. Are we going to be at the mercy of the inflated prices of dealer service? Egad!

Furthermore, there's many other classes of fuel-consuming vehicles that you aren't considering... what about all those planes, trains, boats and big rigs that transport goods around and across our nation? We clearly don't have the technology to make a tractor trailer that runs on batteries and can take two fully-loaded shipping containers across four states in a reasonable amount of time... How far does this "all-electric" vision of yours extend?

Really... is it that "simple" to make the switch to electric? For one person, okay, maybe. For society? I'll let you answer that question after you've put some more thought into it.

[Gilby]

Really... is it that "simple" to make the switch to electric? For one person, okay, maybe. For society? I'll let you answer that question after you've put some more thought into it. For an individual that can afford it, yes. For realistic consumers, no. The price of green electric is still too high for the average user.

Most people live paycheck to paycheck and the bottom line is therefore the deciding factor.

[john_childs]

It takes more than "having technology" to affect a change as large-scale as your proposing. It's not "really simple"... we're not just switching out what model of car we drive... many, many people need to change the way they think before they'll even begin to consider making the switch to hybrid / electric technology. Even then, there are other hurdles to clear, and one heck of a "ripple effect" that will happen thereafter.

...
It is simple compared to the alternative solutions and less disruptive than some of the alternative solutions.

The key is that you start now. The early adopters will jump in early and take the arrows. The rest will wait 10 or so years before switching. That's why you start now cause it will be a long time before a significant percentage of the populations shifts.

The advantage to plug-in hybrids is that the switch is not drastic. It all uses existing infrastructure. Still uses the same gas stations to fuel up. Everyone is familiar with electric plugs.

The early adopters will have to deal with getting a suitable outlet put in their garage or car port. Some employers, condominium complexes, and apartment complexes may install charging stations. But overall it's not a drastic change. The electric companies will need to ramp up to handle the additional demand (go nuclear), but that's about it.

It's a lot less drastic that switching to something like hydrogen or fuel cells. Less disruptive than a forced switch to ethanol. More practical than other pie in the sky ideas.

Tractor trailer rigs can continue using the same diesel engines they've been using. Diesel supplies could be supplemented with bio-diesel.

Oh, and modern cars have been computerised already to the extent that armchair mechanics have difficulty working on them. Plug-in hybrids will be nothing new there.

[BillyTheMountain]

The early adopters will have to deal with getting a suitable outlet put in their garage or car port.

Most people in NYC and other big cities only have street parking, where they can find it. An insurrmountable problem??

Also interesting that the GREED IS GOOD people started to vote late in the game. They are still widely outvoted, but for a while they only had 2 votes, while the other had like 10.

[johnfoss]

Furthermore, what happens to the backyard mechanic? Is there any remote hope that any of these new cars will be user servicable? I saved a lot of money through college wrenching on my own car... that doesn't sound like much of a possibility in an all-electric future.
Today's cars are loaded with microprocessors and emission-control hardware. They're a nightmare compared to the much simpler cars from the early 70s and before, pre-dating emission controls and all the electronics.

Your dealer doesn't repair a microprocessor any more than you could. The hard part is figuring out which one(s) to replace. This can be accomplished with many current cars by plugging them into a computer and using diagnostic software that can often be purchased or downloaded for free. So that portion of the mechanic's job just got geekier, but is still within your abilities (long as you have a computer, internet, and a cable and software.

Internal combustion engines, on the other hand, are hellishly complicated machines. Lots of moving parts, which adds up to lots of wear and tear. If you're talking about electric-only cars, a lot of the traditional wrenching will probably go away. You'll still have transmission and drivetrain, but the motors are much, much simpler (and more reliable!).

Hybrids are only a stepping-stone to something more energy-efficient. They are doubly complex, having two complete power systems. They're good for now, but as long as they use non-renewable resources, they're not the answer.

All-electric cars will probably always be relatively short on range, which may affect how people think of long-distance travel. Maybe the US will have to finally build a decent, modern passenger rail system?

If gas prices go down, enjoy it while it lasts. It keeps getting more expensive to get that stuff out of the ground, both physically and politically. Alaska's "protected" oil reserves probably won't stay protected for long, and the drilling will start eventually. Gas prices will only trend upward, so I'm on the lookout for hopefully something that can even replace our current cars. If not, the one(s) after those.

Someone brought up the point of using tons more electricity. I have thought about this in the past as well. If we're all driving electric cars, we're using vastly greater amounts of electricity than we were when using gas. What will happen to the pollution levels from the power plants? I assume it will be more efficient and less polluting because it's being mass-produced. Is that accurate?

[johnfoss]

Most people in NYC and other big cities only have street parking, where they can find it. An insurrmountable problem??
We are unicyclists. Nothing is insurmountable (except maybe a 10' wheel).

Using NYC as an example, many car-owners will agree that owning a car in central/lower Manhattan is a bad idea in the first place. It'll get a little worse. At least NYC has lots of mass-transit options, unlike many other large cities.

But where there's a market, there will be business. People will need to plug in their cars. The city might install pay-plugs in parking meters. I'm sure the system of paying for the juice can be worked out. Probably the harder part will be thwarting people who will "siphon" electricity from your plug to their own cars?

Also you could have plugs, pay or free at parking lots. The Intel campus in Folsom, CA had a few electric plugs way back in 1998 or so, for the small # of employees who were driving electrics to work. Not sure if the power was delivered as a perk, or if they had to pay for it.

[phlegm]

Hybrid cars may be a solution to our dependency on oil, however I'm not so sure they really address the larger issue of energy consumption. Sure, they make people feel good about themselves because they are burning less gasoline, but how much more energy is expended to create the much more complex electrical system required for a hybrid? Does the energy spent creating more motors, batteries, etc. really justify the amount of energy saved by the consumer? Perhaps, the simpler, basic internal combustion engines save energy because there are less parts to expend energy creating.

[john_childs]

Someone brought up the point of using tons more electricity. I have thought about this in the past as well. If we're all driving electric cars, we're using vastly greater amounts of electricity than we were when using gas. What will happen to the pollution levels from the power plants? I assume it will be more efficient and less polluting because it's being mass-produced. Is that accurate?
That's why we would need to transition to nuclear power plants for the new power plants. It's clean power from a global warming perspective. It's inexpensive power compared to alternatives. Designs and technology for nuclear power plants has gotten better over the years.

There are also other green sources for electric power. But those methods wouldn't be able to keep up with the increased demand. They can supplement, but not replace.

[entropy]

What will happen to the pollution levels from the power plants? I assume it will be more efficient and less polluting because it's being mass-produced. Is that accurate?

A typical internal combustion engine averages 26% thermal efficiency.
(Source (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/Z.Yates/Zach%27s%20Web%20Project%20Folder/EICE%20-%20Main.htm))

A typical oil-fired power plant is 38% efficient (natural gas is >50%).
(Source (http://www.e7.org/Pages/Good_Practices/Energy_Efficiency.html))

Electric motors are >90% efficient (plus no losses idling in traffic).
(Source (http://www.energyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_details.cfm?resourceID=3823&keyword=cheap&sector=All))

[BillyTheMountain]

A typical internal combustion engine averages 26% thermal efficiency.
(Source (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/Z.Yates/Zach%27s%20Web%20Project%20Folder/EICE%20-%20Main.htm))

A typical oil-fired power plant is 38% efficient (natural gas is >50%).
(Source (http://www.e7.org/Pages/Good_Practices/Energy_Efficiency.html))

Electric motors are >90% efficient (plus no losses idling in traffic).
(Source (http://www.energyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_details.cfm?resourceID=3823&keyword=cheap&sector=All))

But this does not account for the inefficiency of generating the electricity at the plant.....

[entropy]

But this does not account for the inefficiency of generating the electricity at the plant.....
Ah, what do you think the oil-fired power plant is generating at 38% efficiency? Rubber chickens?

Here's stuff that I didn't take into account:
Losses due to power lines/power transfer, losses due to battery storage (they don't hold a charge forever!), losses due to charging inefficiencies, losses due to battery discharging inefficiencies...and probably a few others that I didn't think of.

[BillyTheMountain]

Ah, what do you think the oil-fired power plant is generating at 38% efficiency? Rubber chickens?

Here's stuff that I didn't take into account:
Losses due to power lines/power transfer, losses due to battery storage (they don't hold a charge forever!), losses due to charging inefficiencies, losses due to battery discharging inefficiencies...and probably a few others that I didn't think of.

Oy!! And nuclear doesn't travel that well either.....

[wobblyjohn]

Ah, what do you think the oil-fired power plant is generating at 38% efficiency? Rubber chickens?

Here's stuff that I didn't take into account:
Losses due to power lines/power transfer, losses due to battery storage (they don't hold a charge forever!), losses due to charging inefficiencies, losses due to battery discharging inefficiencies...and probably a few others that I didn't think of.
It's all been studied over pretty well, and published. There are thousands of ev's on the road, almost all converted by hobbyists, with a strong online presence. (hint, hint)
A few have adopted watt/hour meters dedicated to the vehicle charging plug. Milage ranges from 2 miles per kwh (measured at the outlet) for a converted full size van hauling a ton of lead, to 5 or more for well converted small cars. For the same price in this neck of the woods, I could drive a small electric conversion 160-170 miles on electricity, or 30 on gas.
But good parts are expensive. Well, the charger and controller, anyway, there isn't much else besides the batteries and motor to these things.
This one's entertaining:
White Zombie (http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/whitezombie.php)
Drives to the track, runs 12's, drives home. No tranny, and it's still destroyed it's fair share of 9 inch rearends. The Dutchman case/axles with Strange gears seems to be holding together, though.

[terrybigwheel]

People tend to buy less of stuff if it's more expensive.

Not when your life/livelyhood depends on it!

[Gilby]

Not when your life/livelyhood depends on it!
Do you depend on oil? If so, you probably need to rethink your livelyhood.

[terrybigwheel]

Do you depend on oil? If so, you probably need to rethink your livelyhood.

Are you kidding? Do a little research and find out for yourself WHY/HOW we (Americans) depend on oil EVERYDAY. Just in case you don't have the time to check it for yourself, allow the following FACTS to educate you:

Why Do We Need Oil and Natural Gas?


Oil and natural gas are an important part of your everyday life. Not only do they give us mobility, they heat and cool our homes and provide electricity. Millions of products are made from oil and gas, including plastics, life-saving medications, clothing, cosmetics, and many other items you may use daily.

In the United States, 97% of the energy that drives the transportation sector (cars, buses, subways, railroads, airplanes, etc.) comes from fuels made from oil.[1] Auto manufacturers are developing cars to run on alternate fuels such as electricity, hydrogen and ethanol. However, the electric batteries need to be charged and the fuel to generate the electricity could be oil or gas. The hydrogen needed for fuel cells may be generated from natural gas or petroleum-based products. Even as alternative fuels are developed, oil will be crucially important to assuring that people can get where they need to be and want to go for the foreseeable future. Barring any increase in the penetration of new technologies, alternative fuels are not expected to become competitive with oil for transportation before 2025.[3]

In areas of the world that are still developing, businesses and individuals are demanding greater mobility for themselves and their products. World vehicle ownership is projected to increase from 122 vehicles per thousand people in 1999 to 144 vehicles per thousand in 2020, with the growth occurring in developing nations. In China, for example, the number of cars has been growing by 20% per year.[3] Airports are being added in these countries as well, expanding jet fuel demand. Oil is expected to remain the primary fuel source for transportation throughout the world for the foreseeable future, and transportation fuels are projected to account for almost 57% of total world oil consumption by 2020.[2]

World population is currently around 6 billion people, but is expected to grow to approximately 7.6 billion by 2020. That will mean a huge increase in the demand for transportation fuels, electricity, and many other consumer products made from oil and natural gas.

Natural-gas use is growing across all economic sectors. Natural gas burns cleaner than oil or coal, and this environmental benefit has encouraged its use. While decades ago, natural gas was seen as an unwanted by-product of oil and may have been wasted, its value has been recognized. Developing nations with gas reserves are finding this resource invaluable to building their economies. Most natural gas is distributed by pipelines, which is a limiting factor for remote resources that are not near the major consuming markets. Some natural gas is chilled to a liquid state (LNG) whereby it can be transported across oceans by tanker. Similarly, there is considerable development of technology to convert natural gas to liquids (GTL) to enable transportation.

The world economy runs on oil and natural gas. These fuels improve your quality of life by providing you with transportation, warmth, light, and many everyday products. They enable you to get where you need to go, they supply products you need, and they create jobs. Without oil and natural gas, quality of life would decline and people in developing nations would not be able to improve their standard of living. Does that mean that alternative energy sources are not necessary? Of course not. But it is important to acknowledge the value of oil and gas to the world economy and recognize that it will be decades before the alternatives can replace all of things that oil and natural gas contribute to our lives.

[1] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review, 2002.
[2] U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2002.
[3] U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2003.
Introduction to Oil and Natural Gas
What is an Oil and Natural Gas Reservoir?
How Does the Industry Find Oil and Natural Gas?
How are Oil and Natural Gas Produced?
Where are Oil and Natural Gas Produced?
How Much Oil and Natural Gas is Left?
What is the Role of Technology in Oil and Natural Gas Production?
How is the Industry Working to Protect the Environment?

[wobblyjohn]

The alternatives are being brought in already. Many of us burn 10% ethanol during the winter months. There's definitely not enough land to grow enough corn to replace all the fuel we use right now, but enough that we can adjust.

A tight oil supply would change things, bit by bit. My manly coworkers have been leaving thier gigantic pickups at home and carpooling. Quite a few have discovered that motorcycles fit into "manliness". As the price increases, other opportunities will attain profitability, and we'll see new businesses cashing in. The cost of oil is coming close to breaking even in plastic manufacturing with cellulose based plastics. Specialty manufacturers have already been selling the stuff for years, at a reasonable premium. Each step of the way, each alternative will reduce the demand for oil, and slow down the consumption. We'll whine and kick our feet, but we'll adjust.

I've personally been backing out of a lot of the premium "quality of life" items. I walk to work. I don't watch tv. I've begun to take the bus to college, and will eventually be fit enough to ride a bike there when I feel like it. I've even been hiking to the store for all my shopping. It's drastically improved my quality of life.

It's really nice to be walking down the street, when a kid jumps out in front of me from behind some obstruction to my vision. I smile and wave, instead of killing or maiming like if I had been driving.
Stupid kids should know better? Stupid parents should keep an eye on them? Those are the only responses I've heard to that argument. When gas hits $10 a gallon, I'll be doing a happy dance. Bring it on! :D

-And while we're at it, bring on the metric system too. Inches are lame.

[john_childs]

Looks like the government wants to spur hydrogen research: $10M Prize for Hydrogen Fuel Technology (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060510/ap_on_sc/hydrogen_prize)

It would be interesting if that research competition results in some good ideas and implementations for hydrogen power.

[phlegm]

I've even been hiking to the store for all my shopping.

I try to walk or take a bike for any short (< 10 mile) and sometime long trips by myself. I have a pair of these (http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=66&subcategory=1004&brand=&sku=8641&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=) to throw on my bike, and they're great for running errands. I get some good looks when I load them up with a couple paper bags worth of groceries.

[skianduniaddict]

problem is that its not price gouging unless its during a natural disaster

[Gilby]

Looks like the government wants to spur hydrogen research: $10M Prize for Hydrogen Fuel Technology (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060510/ap_on_sc/hydrogen_prize)

It would be interesting if that research competition results in some good ideas and implementations for hydrogen power.
Yeah, but where is that hydrogen coming from? Probably oil.

[Gilby]

Are you kidding? Partially not, but yeah, our current living standards need it, especially for plastics, but it's not required as a fuel. Enough alternatives exist that we can do away with oil as a fuel. Of course it's not going to be instant... Cars last 10+ years, so it will at least take that long to make any kind of switch.

[terrybigwheel]

Yeah, but where is that hydrogen coming from? Probably oil.

Take a look here for your answer: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html

[Catboy]

Oxymoron: Driving a Hummer and complaining about gas prices.
Irony: The people driving the hummers are part of the reason for high gas prices.

Rich people are dumb, drive VW!:)

[phlegm]

If people weren't driving all these gas guzzling SUVs, wouldn't the lower demand yield higher prices at the pump? Let the wealthy drive gas guzzlers. They keep the gas prices low for me. ;)

[Gilby]

If people weren't driving all these gas guzzling SUVs, wouldn't the lower demand yield higher prices at the pump? Let the wealthy drive gas guzzlers. They keep the gas prices low for me. ;)
Umm... no, apparently you got your supply demand curve wrong. The higher the demand is for a fixed supply, the higher price you will pay for it. So, if everyone required less gas, then the demand would be lower and the price would also then be lower.

[Gilby]

Take a look here for your answer: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
OK, so most of it is solar technology that is used to split water. Hydrogen is just an energy storage method... is it more efficient than batteries?

[Gilby]

I wouldn't doubt that buying a hybird vehicle, converting it to be a plug-in and installing some solar panels on my property would be less expensive (in total cost of ownership) than buying the gas-guzzling version of the same vehicle. Too bad my vehicle is not available yet as a "plug-in" hybrid.

[john_childs]

From C|Net
Home builders switch on the 'invisible' solar panels (http://news.com.com/2100-11392_3-6070992.html?part=rss&tag=6070992&subj=news)

SunPower (http://www.sunpowercorp.com/home.html) makes the solar panels and PowerLight (http://www.powerlight.com/) forms them into a roof tile for homes.

But home solar isn't going to replace the need for nuclear power to charge all of our nifty plug-in hybrids.

[BillyTheMountain]

Oxymoron: Driving a Hummer and complaining about gas prices.
Irony: The people driving the hummers are part of the reason for high gas prices.

Rich people are dumb, drive VW!:)

Catboy,

Since when did you become rotsrtdinimdA???

Oxymoron: Driving a Unicycle and complaining about seat comfort.

[maestro8]

The alternatives are being brought in already. Many of us burn 10% ethanol during the winter months.
At what point will it become more economical to just toss dollar bills into the fire place to keep the home warm?

I've been converting my dollars to pesos, wadding 'em up into a nice log, and burning those on the cold winter nights.

[BillyTheMountain]

NYTimes front page today: "To many Americans, oil companies like Exxon Mobil or Chevron appear all powerful, pocketing huge profits as energy costs soar. But in other countries around the world, huge oil prices are also making life considerably harder for big oil companies."

It's a good idea, because drivers and home heaters are captive customers. Got huge profits now? Even huger profits if we quadruple the price!! :D

5/19/06, NYTimes front page story: Vote in House Seeks to Erase Oil Windfall.

"oil companies want to play Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker," said a Massachusetts Democrat.

Apparantly, "in an attempt to revoke billions of $$ worth of government incentives to oil and gas producers, the House on Thursday approved a measure that would pressure oil companies to renegotiate more than 1,000 leases for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico."

This is oil and gas produced from publicly owned land in the ocean.

Since the billionaires and oil magnates own the Senate, it's a safe bet this is just posturing by the House which will never pass the Senate.

Especially under Bush, who is a genious at moving tax payer $$ into the hands of billionaires who don't need it, while more in teh USA move into poverty.

[UniTyler]

People tend to buy less of stuff if it's more expensive.

I agree. Oil prices should be raised far past a "reasonable limit," so when our fossil fuel ran out, people would have already cut down on it, hopefully. The only problem is the incredible lack of non-fossil fuel powered vehicles. People aren't just going to break out the old Schwinn. We need a big company, with power, to put out cars that are powered by an alternative fuel and really press it into the customers - along with the fuel being readily available at gas station-like outlets. This would be a huge project, and going by the amount of cars and trucks and SUVs we have now here in America, it would probably not happen until we are literally on our last gallons. If somehow we could make alternatively fueled cars popular and in most people's garages, when we are running out of fossil fuel, the gas stations would not be raided with madmen driving Hummers. :) And gosh, I don't even want to think about what we will do with the cars we have now... convert the engines to run on alternative fuel, possibly?

[john_childs]

Billy, you neglected to use the word "disgorgement" or the phrase "windfall profit tax". You need to go back and study the talking points so you can get on the same page as everyone else.

[Gilby]

so when our fossil fuel ran out...

...it would probably not happen until we are literally on our last gallons

Running out? The fossil fuels are still very abundant (enough to last us centuries). It's not a matter of running out, but a matter of the cost to refine and produce energy. The consumer, who the majority live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to pay more for "ethical" fuel (ie. clean fuel), will buy what's cheapest or most economical for them. This is what drives the market. So until an alternative becomes available that is more economical, we're stuck burning the dirty fossil fuels.

[MrBoogiejuice]

ExxonMobil are up to their usual tricks again.

Ain't they lovely (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ads-funded-by-big-oil-portray-global-warming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/)

[john_childs]

ExxonMobil are up to their usual tricks again.

Ain't they lovely (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ads-funded-by-big-oil-portray-global-warming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/)
That's the kind of public education announcements you're going to get when you turn global warming into a political and propaganda issue.

I clicked through and followed a few links there and ended up here (http://www.climatecrisis.net/). I put propaganda like that in the same class as that commercial about CO2. Get used to more of that type of propaganda from both sides.

What's interesting is that nowhere on that climatecrisis web site did I see any mention of nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions. In their Take Action section they encourage people to support renewable energy but they conveniently neglect to mention nuclear.

Until the wacko greenies can wrap their little minds around the fact that we are going to HAVE to switch to nuclear power if we want to make a dent in their supposed global warming crisis, they are just blowing hot air. They're in denial. Nuclear electricity generation and plug-in hybrid cars are the best and most practical way to reduce CO2 emissions. If we truly are approaching a global crisis then the wacko greenies would support nuclear power as a solution. If they aren't willing to support nuclear power then they obviously don't really believe that there is a global crisis. I call their bluff.