[Vision2020] who killed the electric car?
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Tue Feb 6 14:44:54 PST 2007
Wayne et. al.
Boise has heated many homes with geothermal energy for decades...On Warm
Springs Blvd. I stayed with some friends just a few years ago, and they
complained that the dang geothermal heat system kept running in the summer!
Idaho and the nearby area has several geothermal energy projects underway or
being investigated for development.
Like solar or wind, geothermal has tremendous potential (read the quote I
posted in this thread from the energy scientist who gave figures that wind
generation power potential in some areas of the US equals the energy from
OPEC's petroleum output), but till we see massive implementation of
affordable geothermal, the question must be asked that if this is such a
practical and affordable option, that can soon replace cheap
CO2/mercury polluting coal electricity, for example, what's the hold up?
Ted Moffett
On 2/6/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> [image: New Scientist Environment] <http://environment.newscientist.com/>
>
> - Home <http://environment.newscientist.com/> |News<http://environment.newscientist.com/news.ns>
> |Blog <http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment> |Special
> Reports <http://environment.newscientist.com/specials.ns> |
> Subscribe<http://environment.newscientist.com/subscribe.ns?promcode=nsenvnav>
> |Search <http://environment.newscientist.com/search.ns> |RSS<http://environment.newscientist.com/feeds.ns>
>
> Hot clean power under our feet
>
> America can kick its addiction to fossil fuels by drilling more wells,
> says a panel of experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Not
> for oil, but to tap Earth's heat.
>
> Converting geothermal heat into electricity by pouring water onto hot
> rocks underground and using the steam to turn turbines is arguably the most
> promising - and renewable - source of "green" energy on the planet. So
> concludes the MIT experts' report, released on Monday, which examines what
> geothermal energy could do for the US in the 21st century.
>
> The 18-member panel calculated that there is more than enough extractable
> hydrothermal energy available to generate the entire 27 trillion
> kilowatt-hours of energy consumed in the US in 2005. In fact, a conservative
> estimate of the energy extractable from the hot rocks less than 10
> kilometres beneath American soil suggests that this almost completely
> untapped energy resource could support US energy consumption, at its current
> clip, for more than two millennia to come.
>
> Developing a new generation of geothermal plants is thus a top priority
> for tackling global warming, the panel says. "By any kind of calculation,
> this is an extremely large resource that is technically accessible to us
> right now," says the study's lead author, Jefferson Tester. "It doesn't
> require new technology to get access to it. And there's never going to be a
> limitation on our ability to expand this technology because of limits of the
> resource."
> From issue 2588 of *New Scientist magazine*, 27 January 2007, page 4
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who killed the electric car?
>
>
>
> All-
>
> I do not doubt that the corporate manipulations regarding the electric car
> in California were obstructive to improving and implementing consumer use of
> these cars...
>
> But the bottom line on electric car/trucks being practical for widespread
> use (even ignoring the limited range of these vehicles before needing
> recharging, which has been a significant negative in many consumers minds)
> is the huge amount of electricity that would be needed.
>
> California has problems supplying enough electricity for current needs.
> To implement widespread electric car use in California would require huge
> increases in electricity generation.
>
> Paul's suggestion that electric cars make it possible to turn off coal
> fired electric plants that might power these cars en masse, by replacing the
> coal fired plant with nuclear, wind or solar plants, is not a practical
> solution. The need for the massive amounts of electricity involved would
> require adding more coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, plus adding wind
> and, well, maybe solar, though solar is currently too expensive. We need to
> cut back on coal electric generation as it is, due to CO2 output, or switch
> to CO sequestered coal power, yet we still get 50% of our electricity from
> coal, and there is tremendous resistance to cutting back on cheap coal
> generated electricity, cheaper than nuclear, wind or solar. New nuclear
> fission plants have many drawbacks also. Wind and solar electricity to
> power widespread use of electric cars can be a part of the solution, but not
> enough to turn off coal plants.
>
> To solve these problems nationwide would require a massive reorganization
> of and expansion of electricity generation requiring cooperation across
> numerous sectors of the economy. Even if the oil and auto industry pushed
> the electric car option for widespread use, they might not succeed.
>
> The elephant in the room of the energy/fossil fuel depletion/global
> warming crisis is the fact that our current consumption of energy for
> transportation needs of all kinds uses too much energy, and increases in
> efficiency and implementation of new technology will not sufficiently solve
> the problems quickly enough, even if they can eventually be solved, given
> our current economic and lifestyle demands on energy consumption. It is
> hard to get around the need to radically downsize transportation energy
> consumption. Almost no one wants to face this fact, the economic and
> lifestyle implications. It is assumed we can have our energy cake and eat
> it to...
>
> There is no patent that the oil or auto industry is hiding (though they
> may be hiding some) on electrical generation sources or super efficient
> electric motors that will make solving these transportation energy problems
> easy, nor is lifting corporate control over the work of engineers going to
> make the problem less daunting, though that might help.
>
> We could use more coal combined with CO2 sequestration to generate some of
> the extra electricity needed to power electric cars, but coal will deplete,
> and coal electricity with CO2 sequestration is more expensive,
> though absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. We could
> expand natural gas generated electricity, but this source will deplete. We
> could build 100s of new nuclear power plants to power electric cars. Good
> luck with that idea, with the nuclear waste problem, the expense of nuclear
> plants, and the storage of dangerous nuclear material in a world of
> terrorists threats. More hydro could be implemented, as if our rivers are
> not damned enough already. Wind power is being expanded and is a realistic
> option, but will eventually be needed to replace coal and natural gas
> energy... Solar is currently too expensive, though hopefully it will become
> less. What else? Hydrogen fuel for electric fuel cell cars...? Some of
> the options for generating large amounts of hydrogen fuel suggest building
> more nuclear plants. Again, good luck!:
>
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2002/kiss.htm
>
> Third, hydrogen ? unlike electricity ? can be stored, and so the
> tremendous value of nuclear power can be translated into energy for the
> transportation energy system, a vast market into which nuclear power can now
> penetrate. Professor Paul Kruger of Stanford University has estimated that
> requirements for meeting this demand, but avoiding carbon emissions, will
> require hundreds of nuclear plants in the coming decades, unless one
> believes that renewable energy systems can grow at staggering rates [ Ref
> 16 <http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2002/kis-ref.htm#[point16]>].
> -------
>
> What else? Biomass, biofuel, geothermal, tidal or wave electric
> generation? Probably not solutions for powering a nation wide fleet of
> electric cars.
>
> The development that might make electric cars practical for widespread
> use, even hydrogen fuel cell electric cars, that could be the energy
> breakthrough of human history, fusion, is currently just a gleam in the eyes
> of the physicists and engineers building ITER in France, a 10 billion dollar
> project that is the largest internationally funded scientific project after
> the International Space Station:
>
> http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/ITER_Host.html
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/5/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bill London wrote:
> >
> > Yes, engineers likely could design more efficient vehicles and better
> > power sources -- but will they be allowed to do so?
> > That is the lesson of the electric car fiasco in California.
> > When the gas/auto industries were able to destroy the state mandate for
> > zero emission cars, they stopped their engineers from improving the existing
> > electric cars, stopped their customers from buying any (or transferrring
> > their leases to purchases), and destroyed all existing vehicles.
> > BL
> >
> >
> > I think they will eventually be allowed to do their designs. What I
> > can't tell you is if they will be allowed to do so by the forward-thinking
> > progressives or by those who will be picking up the pieces after the oil
> > runs dry and the economy comes crashing down.
> >
> > I definitely want to watch the DVD. I am entertained by watching
> > self-serving billionaires ruin everything for us because they have a level
> > of greed most people stamp out of their children by the time they are four.
> > Gives me faith in humanity.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: New Scientist Environment] <http://environment.newscientist.com/>
>
> - Home <http://environment.newscientist.com/> |News<http://environment.newscientist.com/news.ns>
> |Blog <http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment> |Special
> Reports <http://environment.newscientist.com/specials.ns> |
> Subscribe<http://environment.newscientist.com/subscribe.ns?promcode=nsenvnav>
> |Search <http://environment.newscientist.com/search.ns> |RSS<http://environment.newscientist.com/feeds.ns>
>
> Hot clean power under our feet
>
> America can kick its addiction to fossil fuels by drilling more wells,
> says a panel of experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Not
> for oil, but to tap Earth's heat.
>
> Converting geothermal heat into electricity by pouring water onto hot
> rocks underground and using the steam to turn turbines is arguably the most
> promising - and renewable - source of "green" energy on the planet. So
> concludes the MIT experts' report, released on Monday, which examines what
> geothermal energy could do for the US in the 21st century.
>
> The 18-member panel calculated that there is more than enough extractable
> hydrothermal energy available to generate the entire 27 trillion
> kilowatt-hours of energy consumed in the US in 2005. In fact, a conservative
> estimate of the energy extractable from the hot rocks less than 10
> kilometres beneath American soil suggests that this almost completely
> untapped energy resource could support US energy consumption, at its current
> clip, for more than two millennia to come.
>
> Developing a new generation of geothermal plants is thus a top priority
> for tackling global warming, the panel says. "By any kind of calculation,
> this is an extremely large resource that is technically accessible to us
> right now," says the study's lead author, Jefferson Tester. "It doesn't
> require new technology to get access to it. And there's never going to be a
> limitation on our ability to expand this technology because of limits of the
> resource."
> From issue 2588 of *New Scientist magazine*, 27 January 2007, page 4
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who killed the electric car?
>
>
>
> All-
>
> I do not doubt that the corporate manipulations regarding the electric car
> in California were obstructive to improving and implementing consumer use of
> these cars...
>
> But the bottom line on electric car/trucks being practical for widespread
> use (even ignoring the limited range of these vehicles before needing
> recharging, which has been a significant negative in many consumers minds)
> is the huge amount of electricity that would be needed.
>
> California has problems supplying enough electricity for current needs.
> To implement widespread electric car use in California would require huge
> increases in electricity generation.
>
> Paul's suggestion that electric cars make it possible to turn off coal
> fired electric plants that might power these cars en masse, by replacing the
> coal fired plant with nuclear, wind or solar plants, is not a practical
> solution. The need for the massive amounts of electricity involved would
> require adding more coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, plus adding wind
> and, well, maybe solar, though solar is currently too expensive. We need to
> cut back on coal electric generation as it is, due to CO2 output, or switch
> to CO sequestered coal power, yet we still get 50% of our electricity from
> coal, and there is tremendous resistance to cutting back on cheap coal
> generated electricity, cheaper than nuclear, wind or solar. New nuclear
> fission plants have many drawbacks also. Wind and solar electricity to
> power widespread use of electric cars can be a part of the solution, but not
> enough to turn off coal plants.
>
> To solve these problems nationwide would require a massive reorganization
> of and expansion of electricity generation requiring cooperation across
> numerous sectors of the economy. Even if the oil and auto industry pushed
> the electric car option for widespread use, they might not succeed.
>
> The elephant in the room of the energy/fossil fuel depletion/global
> warming crisis is the fact that our current consumption of energy for
> transportation needs of all kinds uses too much energy, and increases in
> efficiency and implementation of new technology will not sufficiently solve
> the problems quickly enough, even if they can eventually be solved, given
> our current economic and lifestyle demands on energy consumption. It is
> hard to get around the need to radically downsize transportation energy
> consumption. Almost no one wants to face this fact, the economic and
> lifestyle implications. It is assumed we can have our energy cake and eat
> it to...
>
> There is no patent that the oil or auto industry is hiding (though they
> may be hiding some) on electrical generation sources or super efficient
> electric motors that will make solving these transportation energy problems
> easy, nor is lifting corporate control over the work of engineers going to
> make the problem less daunting, though that might help.
>
> We could use more coal combined with CO2 sequestration to generate some of
> the extra electricity needed to power electric cars, but coal will deplete,
> and coal electricity with CO2 sequestration is more expensive,
> though absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. We could
> expand natural gas generated electricity, but this source will deplete. We
> could build 100s of new nuclear power plants to power electric cars. Good
> luck with that idea, with the nuclear waste problem, the expense of nuclear
> plants, and the storage of dangerous nuclear material in a world of
> terrorists threats. More hydro could be implemented, as if our rivers are
> not damned enough already. Wind power is being expanded and is a realistic
> option, but will eventually be needed to replace coal and natural gas
> energy... Solar is currently too expensive, though hopefully it will become
> less. What else? Hydrogen fuel for electric fuel cell cars...? Some of
> the options for generating large amounts of hydrogen fuel suggest building
> more nuclear plants. Again, good luck!:
>
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2002/kiss.htm
>
> Third, hydrogen ? unlike electricity ? can be stored, and so the
> tremendous value of nuclear power can be translated into energy for the
> transportation energy system, a vast market into which nuclear power can now
> penetrate. Professor Paul Kruger of Stanford University has estimated that
> requirements for meeting this demand, but avoiding carbon emissions, will
> require hundreds of nuclear plants in the coming decades, unless one
> believes that renewable energy systems can grow at staggering rates [ Ref
> 16 <http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2002/kis-ref.htm#[point16]>].
> -------
>
> What else? Biomass, biofuel, geothermal, tidal or wave electric
> generation? Probably not solutions for powering a nation wide fleet of
> electric cars.
>
> The development that might make electric cars practical for widespread
> use, even hydrogen fuel cell electric cars, that could be the energy
> breakthrough of human history, fusion, is currently just a gleam in the eyes
> of the physicists and engineers building ITER in France, a 10 billion dollar
> project that is the largest internationally funded scientific project after
> the International Space Station:
>
> http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/ITER_Host.html
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/5/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bill London wrote:
> >
> > Yes, engineers likely could design more efficient vehicles and better
> > power sources -- but will they be allowed to do so?
> > That is the lesson of the electric car fiasco in California.
> > When the gas/auto industries were able to destroy the state mandate for
> > zero emission cars, they stopped their engineers from improving the existing
> > electric cars, stopped their customers from buying any (or transferrring
> > their leases to purchases), and destroyed all existing vehicles.
> > BL
> >
> >
> > I think they will eventually be allowed to do their designs. What I
> > can't tell you is if they will be allowed to do so by the forward-thinking
> > progressives or by those who will be picking up the pieces after the oil
> > runs dry and the economy comes crashing down.
> >
> > I definitely want to watch the DVD. I am entertained by watching
> > self-serving billionaires ruin everything for us because they have a level
> > of greed most people stamp out of their children by the time they are four.
> > Gives me faith in humanity.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070206/b4f24876/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nsenvironment_logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 4675 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070206/b4f24876/attachment-0001.gif
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list