Lower "forever" oil prices?

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Xist

This is a Camaro, but only has a 2L engine, and they are asking $20,342: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/d...7725/overview/

That sounds pretty cheap [for a new car] to me.

It is only rated 25 MPG average, though.

It does show 44.14 mpg (auto, 41.54 manual) in the old highway standard EPA test. I wonder if it wouldn't hypermile pretty well. That new platform is much more expensive in the Caddy ATS and it gets the same motor. The basic Camaro is a steal.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by JockoT

My daily electricity bill, here in Scotland with our coal, oil, hydro and wind power, is £4.40/$5.67. We are a two person family with no A/C.
It won't take much for solar to beat that. Except, because of the price of electricity, I am not in a position to afford solar panels!

$5.67/day...

Doing a little back of the napkin math, you're paying $~170/month for electricity.

What would you be able to buy, in terms of solar panels, controllers, and storage batteries with a loan that has a $170/month payment?

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by jakobnev

I disagree, we have had 50mpg+ cars for over 30 years. It would not be a tax on low incomes, it would be a tax on poor decisions.

And high mpg cars are cheaper than low mpg cars, further making it nonsensical to call it a tax on the poor.

Actually, going on my own observed evidence, the poor buy whatever is available used. Which isn't a lot of Prius'. There's the occasional 4-cylinder car, but most are V6 and larger, and I see in my daily driving (delivery driver) a LOT of ratty SUVs.

So yes, it WOULD be a tax on the poor, at least for a decade or more.

And personally, even though in my job I'm shelling out around $5,000/yr for gas, I can't yet justify the payments of a new car.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by Daox

You also kind of need electricity to run the pumps at the gas station.

Gas generator. At the gas station.

[The Atomic Ass]

In all this talk of electric cars, I've come to the realization that Tesla et al have missed one neat trick: Solar panels. More specifically, on the car.

The full length sunroof on the Model S is impressive, sure, but what would be more impressive is if they could cram 2 KW of solar onto the car, such that with a conservative estimate we arrive at 12 KWh of charge that could be had each sunny day.

[JockoT]

2 Kw requires 14 sq m. Quite a while before the efficiency gets up to value that makes installation on a car worthwhile.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by rdefayette

Underground lines are great so long as the system is watertight. Florida, for example, just had Hurricane Irma go through with a LOT of flooding from the storm surge. 2 problems arise with Florida in particular when it comes to "the grid"/power distribution of any kind. 1) over head lines can be brought down by high winds and trees falling during a hurricane. 2) The storm surge and subsequent flooding will cause just as much if not more damage than the winds themselves due to improved construction techniques/building codes and hurricane "resistant" building products. The problem with the underground lines in coastal regions, such as Florida, that see any type of frequent flooding is the underground electric distribution system does NOT fare too well when saltwater is introduced into the equation. Buried/underground transformers (even those placed on ground level pads) electric lines/cables, etc and saltwater are a combination that that leads to power outages if not during the storm but "short"ly (pun intended) thereafter.

Of course underground power lines and systems need to be sealed properly.
At high voltage any water leak, salt or not would cause havoc.
Holland has 100% porous underground and power lines are typically below groundwater level. Believe me, it is possible to properly protect them.
I probably would not be able to type this right now if it weren't: storm and rain right now. But no worries at all.

As for flooding, half of our country is below sea level so we do have more experience than we'd like to have had, but we have got it under control quite well since half a century ago just like the power system.

Along the rivers we have low-lying sections designed to flood over to buffer exceptional rainfall and river surges while the mainland gets protected behind high dikes.
Cities like Houston, Miami and New Orleans could benefit greatly from having a system like that. It could be a recreational lake of a few square miles, say 30 feet below seal level, no fixed objects on its shores. City flood water should be able to wash in, and the city and basin need to be protected by a dike above hurricane surge sea level.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by JockoT

2 Kw requires 14 sq m. Quite a while before the efficiency gets up to value that makes installation on a car worthwhile.

That, and it would be more expensive and vulnerable than a land based solar installation.
As they say, if you want your EV to really have zero emissions buy solar panels and put them on your house.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

As they say, if you want your EV to really have zero emissions buy solar panels and put them on your house.

I'd rather buy solar panels, and put them on someone's house in Phoenix. It makes little sense for me to put 'em up on my 50% cloudy days roof, especially when my electricity is $0.08/kWh and mostly hydro power.

[JockoT]

Just seen a bit on the local news this morning that a new park being built in Inverness will have an Archimedes Screw built in the River Ness (that flows through park - Inverness actually means "the mouth of the Ness") and it will provide electricity for all the parks facilities plus 150 houses.
All new housing schemes being built around here must have a runoff area for rain water. They are normally built as reed bed ponds, which during heavy rain can fill with water, so preventing damage to property. With the fondness for drives instead of gardens rain water runoff is becoming more of a problem.