Morelli Shape

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by Jim Bullis

RobertSmalls,

You have it right except you open the door to the tricksters when you allow claims if the system is combined with 'low carbon' generation.

Countries like Canada, France, and Kenya make extensive use of hydro, nuclear, and wind. Charging an EV there would be a no brainer environmental win over gasoline. And the fact is that plunking down $50-60k on an electric car + PV array DOES buy you limitless, paid-for, CO2-free transportation, within your car's range anyway. Nevermind whether you could go carbon-negative with a $30-40k PV array and a gas-fired Prius.

The American grid could easily become as sustainable and environmentally friendly as Canada's. We just collectively lack the willingness to spend a little more per KWh. If environmentalists were to acknowledge the grid's CO2 intensity and educate people on the need to improve it, we could achieve a pretty rapid improvement.

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by Jim Bullis

nmgolfer,

I heard somewhere that both Carter and Reagan agreed that thorium posed a nuclear proliferation threat that they deemed unacceptably difficult to manage. Please correct me if that is wrong.

I don't know if they said that but proliferation problems with thorium? Not so much..

Here's an article

uranium is so last century-- enter thorium the new green nuke

and yet another:

Energy: Are You A Pig - And A Bigot? - MarketTicker Forums

Sorry for getting off-topic

[NeilBlanchard]

Like I said umpteen times -- if you add the embedded energy in electricity to the equation, then you must also add it to gasoline.

And since you can get electricity from renewable sources, and you cannot get gasoline from renewable sources, the ultimate energy is electricity.

If you want to measure the efficiency of a car, then you measure the energy carried in the car, and how much of that its used per unit of distance traveled.

If you want to measure the efficiency of the entire support energy system -- i.e. source-to-wheels, then you have a much hard job. And I posit that either way you measure it, electricity is the cleaner, much lower carbon content form of energy. In fact, between electricity and gasoline -- electricity is the one that has the potential to be carbon free.

Biodiesel would be great also, as would methane from digesters. But petroleum derived gasoline is not even close to electricity.

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/20...-infinite.html

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If you want to measure the efficiency of the entire support energy system -- i.e. source-to-wheels, then you have a much hard job. And I posit that either way you measure it, electricity is the cleaner, much lower carbon content form of energy. In fact, between electricity and gasoline -- electricity is the one that has the potential to be carbon free.

Even at 600gCO2/KWh? I don't think you've done the math.



For the record, I would prefer to drop the issue, but Neil, you write so often and across so many corners of the internet that I feel it's important that you question the assumptions of the McKibbens and Llewellyns of the world and run some honest fact-checking on them.

[Jim Bullis]

RobertSmalls and Neil, and Frank too

I concur on your suggestion on math checking as something needed. Simply stated, the burdens of the embedded energy for fuel transporting and processing should certainly be included, but in any case this number is far less than the burden of the embedded energy that is thrown away in the essential heat engine, wherever it might be, due to the fundamentals of physics as stated as the Second Law of thermodynamics.

But Neil, if you are talking about costs of maintaining a Department of Defense, health costs incurred due to burning fuels, stealing coal lands from Indians, maintaining freedom of the seas, count me out for that discussion. This type of thinking is bamboozium, which is truly in great proliferation in our developed world. I use the word 'efficiency' to indicate the energy conversion effectiveness for scope of the process that directly HAPPENS as a result of the electric vehicle operation.

But RobertSmalls, I agree that the discussion has become tiresome at best, but you seem to be one of very few on the planet that understands basic physics and is also willing to stand your ground against the present onslaught of bamboozium. And I think it really matters quite a lot.

[Jim Bullis]

Also Neil,

It would help me explain the terminology that I use to you if you would go out and find a textbook on Fundamentals of Physics by Sears, or Sears and Zemansky or other equivalent, and read the chapter on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Then we might be able to discuss things using the same terminology.

While you are at it you might also pick up a copy of Rouse and Howe 1960 on fluid dynamics, and take a look at how fluids flow around interfering entities. Specifically notice that the practice is not to draw a closed path around a bunch of clearly separable things and declare that this is the relevant cross section for calculating drag force with the Cd parameter. Yes, it is important to take interactions of separate entities into account, but that would be a rational way to proceed.

[Jim Bullis]

RobertSmalls,

As to the plunking of $50K to $60K, which is about right for actually powering a car of the sort we might expect, yes it 'buys you' ownership of the power produced.

But I take a next step and ask, "Hey! What are your options once you have that power production going?" I would answer, "Well, assuming that there is a rational public utility and regulatory commision involved, there would be an option to simply sell your power back to the utility." I think you might say, "Well heck Jim, I guess I would rather buy a Prius, with Hybrid Synergy Drive, and sell the electric power from my solar panels back to the utility where they can use it to reduce the need for burning coal to make electricity." And now, under your wise decision, the EV has become unnecessary.

Ok, so you saly, "Go to heck, Jim, I want to show off to my girlfriend with a flashy Tesla," and you reserve the power for yourself to use it in that Tesla that you go out and buy. The accounting, as I see it, is that the utility will have to use more coal as a consequence of your decision. And this ignores the fact that you will also have to cough up around $120K for the battery bucket, muscle car callled a Tesla Roadster beyond what you would have paid for the Prius.

This is not physics. It is simply the events that we should expect from rational people.

[miket]

Neil why do you say that electricity can be carbon neutral but liquid fuels cannot? Liquid fuels can be made from renewable biomass or high temperature nuclear reactors. Eventually, our electricity and our fuels will be free from carbon. Neither is close today. As far as electrics go i think its far more likely for hybrid fuel cell vehicles to become popular than long range battery powered vehicles.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Jim Bullis

Ok, so you saly, "Go to heck, Jim, I want to show off to my girlfriend with a flashy Tesla," and you reserve the power for yourself to use it in that Tesla that you go out and buy. The accounting, as I see it, is that the utility will have to use more coal as a consequence of your decision. And this ignores the fact that you will also have to cough up around $120K for the battery bucket, muscle car callled a Tesla Roadster beyond what you would have paid for the Prius.

Suppose I instead buy a Lotus Elise for $45K and use the leftover $75K to buy solar panels and sell the power to my utility. Then what?

[Frank Lee]

Suppose I reduce my energy use TODAY instead of obsessing for 5+ years over a funky unworkable fantasy car?