Electricity vs. Gasoline Prices

[Globemaker]

On Aug 21, 9:30 am, tuinkabouter <dachthetn...@net.invalid> wrote:

On 8/20/2011 11:39 PM, Rich Grise wrote:









Nobody wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:28:30 +0200, Sjouke Burry wrote:

Main advantages of electric is: Pollution can be managed better,

Or reduced, or eliminated. Just because the US mostly uses coal, it
doesn't follow that the rest of the world does.

There's also the flexibility issue; an electric vehicle doesn't care
whether the electricity comes from coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear, but
internal combustion engines can be quite fussy about their fuel.

They "cleaned up" coal plants decades ago. They brought pollution levels
down to trace levels, too small to be detected by the instruments of the
time; nowadays, they've got instruments that can pick up parts per billion,
or parts per trillion, so naturally, the freakazoids writing the regulations
have to throw everybody into a  panic about such small traces of "bad stuff"
that, of course, is going to kill us all, even though the actual observable
harm has been virtually negligible.

It's just a power-trip thing. If they were serious about reducing CO2,
they'd be tripping over themselves in their haste to get onto the nuclear
bandwagon.

When "they" can come up with an electric that can go 250 miles on a
charge, then recharge in about five minutes for less than about fifty
bucks, then people will buy electrics.

In the early 1970's, I had a Ford Pinto that would go about 250 miles
on a tank, and the tank held eight gallons, so that's about 30 MPG.
And, of course, since that was before Our Glorious Beloved Infallible
Leader issued his imperial edict banning drilling in order to protect
the snail darter or whatever, gasoline was less than a buck a gallon,
if I recall accurately. I do remember full service at 32.9 in the late
1960's.

Every time the us starts a war, the oil prices go up.
Who is earning from this?
Additionally, the US don't start wars in countries with no or less oil.

The price of electricity in Hawaii is $0.35 per kilowatt hour. That is
triple the price in North Dakota.

 

[m II]

Phil Allison wrote:

Electric vehicles are still way cheaper to run cos the conversion efficiency
of the electric motors used is at least 4 times better than a normal petrol
engine.

You're forgetting about the conversion losses at the generating end.
Turbines are not 100 percent efficient. Neither are boilers or the
trucks carrying coal to the plant. Then there are line losses to get the
power to you.

mike

 

[Winston]

m II wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

Electric vehicles are still way cheaper to run cos the conversion efficiency
of the electric motors used is at least 4 times better than a normal petrol
engine.


You're forgetting about the conversion losses at the generating end.
Turbines are not 100 percent efficient. Neither are boilers or the
trucks carrying coal to the plant. Then there are line losses to get the
power to you.

Absolutely right, Mike.

For that reason, we always include the cost of growing prehistoric
zooplankton and algae, allowing it to mellow into oil over a period
of say 300 million years and then drilling, refining and transporting
within the petrol regimen.

No. Wait.

--Winston <-- Wants to be rich enough to *really* buy a barrel of oil.

 

On Aug 20, 6:56 am, Globemaker <alanfolms...@cabanova.com> wrote:

"reports of people getting run over because they
couldn't hear it coming,"

I was threatened by a silent electric car twice in one day. I was
riding my bicycle on Hawaii Belt Road near South Point when a
silent
car passed my left elbow with a distance of near zero meters. It
was a
low car and my elbow was high. Later that day last year, the same
car
did the same terrorizing pass going back home. With my bike's wind
noise, I could not hear the whining electric motor until it was 0
meters from my bike +/- 0.6 meters. I believe it was a tourist who
rented a new electric car and she deliberately drove too close to
me
twice in one day. Aloha...

I never assume malice when it can more easily be explained by
stupidity.

G˛

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Winston wrote:

m II wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:

Electric vehicles are still way cheaper to run cos the conversion
efficiency of the electric motors used is at least 4 times better
than a normal petrol engine.


You're forgetting about the conversion losses at the generating end.
Turbines are not 100 percent efficient. Neither are boilers or the
trucks carrying coal to the plant. Then there are line losses to
get the power to you.

Absolutely right, Mike.

For that reason, we always include the cost of growing prehistoric
zooplankton and algae, allowing it to mellow into oil over a period
of say 300 million years and then drilling, refining and transporting
within the petrol regimen.

No. Wait.

Wait for what? We always include all costs in market prices. Except for
the arbitrary level of tax on gas and subsidy on hybrids, the market price
reflects exactly the level of economy of each.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Winston]

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Winston wrote:
m II wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:

Electric vehicles are still way cheaper to run cos the conversion
efficiency of the electric motors used is at least 4 times better
than a normal petrol engine.


You're forgetting about the conversion losses at the generating end.
Turbines are not 100 percent efficient. Neither are boilers or the
trucks carrying coal to the plant. Then there are line losses to
get the power to you.

Absolutely right, Mike.

For that reason, we always include the cost of growing prehistoric
zooplankton and algae, allowing it to mellow into oil over a period
of say 300 million years and then drilling, refining and transporting
within the petrol regimen.

No. Wait.

Wait for what? We always include all costs in market prices.

Nup.
We forget to account for 'origination', extraction and disposal costs
if they are inconvenient. We only include those costs when trying
to make an alternative approach appear uneconomic.

How expensive *would* a barrel of oil be if we had to pay for
someone to grow sufficient zooplankton and algae, mellow it
for say 300 million years and then drill, refine and transport
the desired byproducts.

Billions of dollars per barrel?

Except for
the arbitrary level of tax on gas and subsidy on hybrids, the market price
reflects exactly the level of economy of each.

Nup.
We forget to account for the safe disposal of nuclear waste
and the cost of recovery from nuclear disasters like Three
Mile Island and Fukushima.

--Winston

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Winston wrote:

Wait for what? We always include all costs in market prices.

Nup.
We forget to account for 'origination', extraction and disposal costs
if they are inconvenient. We only include those costs when trying
to make an alternative approach appear uneconomic.

That air you're breathing isn't free. Those oxygen atoms had a very
expensive origination.

How expensive *would* a barrel of oil be if we had to pay for
someone to grow sufficient zooplankton and algae, mellow it
for say 300 million years and then drill, refine and transport
the desired byproducts.

Billions of dollars per barrel?

Irrelevant because you don't have to pay for natural processes that produced
your air either.

Except for
the arbitrary level of tax on gas and subsidy on hybrids, the
market price reflects exactly the level of economy of each.

Nup.
We forget to account for the safe disposal of nuclear waste
and the cost of recovery from nuclear disasters like Three
Mile Island and Fukushima.

They do have other nuclear plants in Japan you know, and they're ok. And
they do have other things like supermarkets and libraries that incurred a
cost from the tsunami.

You don't have to account for that any more than you have to account for the
cost of the fire department in the cost of a house as opposed to a stone
cave.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Winston]

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Winston wrote:

Wait for what? We always include all costs in market prices.

Nup.
We forget to account for 'origination', extraction and disposal costs
if they are inconvenient. We only include those costs when trying
to make an alternative approach appear uneconomic.

That air you're breathing isn't free. Those oxygen atoms had a very
expensive origination.

Oxygen was the first gas pollutant to have a negative impact
on the life extant at the time.

We're doing everybody a favor by converting back to it's
more 'natural' form.

How expensive *would* a barrel of oil be if we had to pay for
someone to grow sufficient zooplankton and algae, mellow it
for say 300 million years and then drill, refine and transport
the desired byproducts.

Billions of dollars per barrel?

Irrelevant because you don't have to pay for natural processes that produced
your air either.

All the oxygen that I convert to CO2 is very quickly converted back
to oxygen via photosynthesis. The oil that I convert to CO2 is
converted back to oil so slowly as to be undetectable.
We're not running out of oxygen. We are running out of oil.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Hubbert_world_2004.png

Except for
the arbitrary level of tax on gas and subsidy on hybrids, the
market price reflects exactly the level of economy of each.

Nup.
We forget to account for the safe disposal of nuclear waste
and the cost of recovery from nuclear disasters like Three
Mile Island and Fukushima.

They do have other nuclear plants in Japan you know, and they're ok.

They are operating and incurring a cost that future generations
will have to pay. Fukushima is not running and is incurring a
much more serious cost that future generations will have to pay.

And
they do have other things like supermarkets and libraries that incurred a
cost from the tsunami.

You don't have to account for that any more than you have to account for the
cost of the fire department in the cost of a house as opposed to a stone
cave.

Property taxes have been abolished? Why wasn't I informed?

--Winston