[Vision2020] who killed the electric car?
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Tue Feb 6 17:58:43 PST 2007
Wayne et. al.
Thanks for your medical analogy on global warming /fossil fuel depletion.
The long term economic impacts of global warming likely make spending more
now to solve the problem a wise investment, but the profit models are too
short term for this sort of long term planning, and then there is this
daunting problem:
BEIJING (AFP) - China said it had no plans to radically change its reliance
on coal and other dirty fuels, as it insisted the responsibility for global
warming rested with developed countries.
http://p225.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070206/sc_afp/unclimatechina;_ylt=AsFFZoZinkKfn5C8tuJjBgJpl88F;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA
--
Ted Moffett
On 2/6/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a medical analogy might be apt.
>
> Suppose you are ill and your options are:
>
> 1. You do nothing after which you will die a slow, accelerating
> tortuous death.
>
> 2. You have a $1,000 operation with the likelihood that afterward you
> will die a not quite as fast, accelerating tortuous death.
>
> 3. You have a $50,000 operation after which you might not be as
> functional as you were before, but you will be able to live an almost
> normal, productive life.
>
> Which would you chose?
>
> The situation is similar to the current energy crisis.
>
> We can:
>
> 1. Do nothing. Allow the accelerating demand for fossil and other
> fuels to continue given the world's burgeoning population until there are
> not enough resources left, and wars, etc ensue to secure the last bits
> left. In the meantime, environmental disasters doom many and reduce the
> quality of life for almost all.
>
> 2. Try to develop more efficient fossil fuel cars and fossil fuel based
> electrical generation. Results: the same as in 1. just above, only just a
> little slower.
>
> 3. Invest heavily in alternate fuel source*s*, even [Gasp!] supporting
> massive research and development with tax dollars (I can hear Crabtree's
> perpetual "free enterprise is the only answer" hernia exploding from here)
> in an effort to provide sufficient energy and to attempt to prevent various
> kinds of environmental disasters. I am thinking of the kind of massive
> program that occurred right after Sputnik I went up. There was a lot of
> money spent. There was lots of waste and corruption (most of the waste and
> corruption occurred in private corporations because of lax government
> oversight). But we did get a person on the moon. Somehow, in my possible
> short-sightedness, solving the energy crisis seems more important for the
> survival of humankind, animalkind, and plantkind than getting to the moon.
>
> My guess is that we will do too little until it is too late. Many of
> those in influential policy making positions remind me of college students
> who do not study seriously until the night before the exam or those that do
> not study at all hoping for a severe snowstorm. The problem is complex.
> Energy companies have spent millions pooh-poohing the global warming crisis
> and assuring us they have the energy demand problem under control. Many of
> the credulous believe them. Their money elects far more politicians than
> does that of the ordinary citizen.
>
> Fill in the blanks.
>
>
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> deco at moscow.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:44 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who killed the electric car?
>
>
> 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
> > =======================================================
> >
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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/dedc74d8/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/dedc74d8/attachment-0001.gif
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list