Numbers Just Aren't There To Continue With Internal Combusti

On Jan 5, 11:03 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill
might be simpler to consider relative efficiency of gasoline power
plant as opposed to using the gasoline in the ICE.
 
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)

You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public transportation.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.

Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any city bus system.



I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.

What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?

But gasoline still wins.

Depends on what you optimize for.
If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the grid.

The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.


Bret Cahill
 
The mentality we must avoid at all cost is what was ridiculed on _Car
Talk_:

"You know what that thing does? It causes your SUV from getting 8.6
miles per gallon to getting eight point six FIVE miles per gallon. Ha
ha ha ha ha . . . ."


Bret Cahill



The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill
 
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:9cec929b-5819-4133-a70d-80252b6f5603@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so
a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is
to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)

You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid
Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.

Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just
turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great
net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any
city bus system.



I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.

What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?

But gasoline still wins.

Depends on what you optimize for.

If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the grid.

The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.


Bret Cahill
Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy independence,
Energy security, trade deficit, national debt, food-fuel price link leading
to destruction of prestine rainforests and nature preserves...
There are probably many more reasons why it makes sense to move away from
oil, and towards the grid for our ground transportation.

Simply stipulating a number for gas prices is in my opinion at least
misleading and grossly undervaluing the very profound and often unrecognized
grip that fossil fuels and oil specifically has on our western way of life.

Currently, without fossil fuel (and oil specifically) our western
civilisation is not sustainable. If we want our grand children and great
grant children to live a lifestyle that is at least as good as we live, then
we better start making changes right now.
So this ship (our civilisation) is heading for the cliffs and without change
there will be an immense price to pay for future generations.

That's my 2 cts.

Rob
 
In article <4kh7m45l4nu46at037h0e0jgvd31kgct67@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...>
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:11:40 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
lcargill@cfl.rr.com says...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John


The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)
That's certainly doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.
Hydrogen still has the container problem and adds the supply
problem, though unlike super caps or fuel cells hydrogen works.

I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.

But gasoline still wins.
Hands down. ...and will for decades more.
 
In article <w4SdnS11MaTTUf7UnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
nhoj@droffats.ten says...>
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard
of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have much higher
taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they
are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their standard of living.

Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.
More weenie nonsense.
 
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so
a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is
to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)

You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid
Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.

Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just
turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great
net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any
city bus system.

I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.

What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?

But gasoline still wins.

Depends on what you optimize for.

If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the grid.

The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.

Bret Cahill

Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy independence,
Energy security, trade deficit, national debt, food-fuel price link leading
to destruction of prestine rainforests and nature preserves...
Isn't going to get the attention of Congress.

There are probably many more reasons why it makes sense to move away from
oil, and towards the grid for our ground transportation.

Simply stipulating a number for gas prices is in my opinion at least
misleading
We know it's true and we know it'll get the attention of Congress.

and grossly undervaluing the very profound and often unrecognized
grip that fossil fuels and oil specifically has on our western way of life.
One of which is how they manage to keep so many distracted from the
100% certain fact of the impending triple digit inflation of fuel
prices.

Currently, without fossil fuel (and oil specifically) our western
civilisation is not sustainable. If we want our grand children and great
grant children to live a lifestyle that is at least as good as we live, then
we better start making changes right now.
So this ship (our civilisation) is heading for the cliffs and without change
there will be an immense price to pay for future generations.
I'll worry about us before them and me before us.

Let's just see if we get to die from natural causes instead of some
geo war.


Bret Cahill
 
Yes they are there. If I walk home it will take me 30 minutes, if I drive
it will take 4.
 
krw wrote:
In article <w4SdnS11MaTTUf7UnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
nhoj@droffats.ten says...
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard
of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have much higher
taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they
are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their standard of living.
Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.

More weenie nonsense.
I hope that tome of a response did't hurt you.


Quoting INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 1998

Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus
taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection
services required by petroleum producers and users.
Foremost among these is the cost of military protection
for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense
Department spending allocated to safeguard the
worlds’ petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3
billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
federal government entity designed to supplement
regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to
military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an
additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and
the Department of Transportation’s Maritime
Administration provide other protection services
totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and
state governments also provide protection services for
oil industry companies and gasoline users. These
externalized police, fire, and emergency response
expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.

The United States military plays a crucial role in
ensuring the free flow of oil on the world market.
It is important to realize that the cost of defending oil
infrastructure around the world is not cheap. Although
historically low gasoline prices at the pump have encouraged
many US consumers to embrace trendy gas
guzzling light trucks and sport utility vehicles, forsaking
conservation efforts for wasteful convenience, all
Americans foot the bill for increasing foreign oil dependence
and the military costs (both in monetary and
social terms) associated with securing a steady supply
of oil. The United States economy remains heavily
dependent on oil and is likely to become increasingly
dependent on foreign oil as domestic production
dwindles over the next decade.
 
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:57:32 -0600, John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:

krw wrote:
In article <w4SdnS11MaTTUf7UnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
nhoj@droffats.ten says...
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard
of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have much higher
taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they
are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their standard of living.
Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.

More weenie nonsense.

I hope that tome of a response did't hurt you.


Quoting INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 1998

Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus
taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection
services required by petroleum producers and users.
Foremost among these is the cost of military protection
for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense
Department spending allocated to safeguard the
worlds? petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3
billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
federal government entity designed to supplement
regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to
military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an
additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and
the Department of Transportation?s Maritime
Administration provide other protection services
totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and
state governments also provide protection services for
oil industry companies and gasoline users. These
externalized police, fire, and emergency response
expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.

The United States military plays a crucial role in
ensuring the free flow of oil on the world market.
It is important to realize that the cost of defending oil
infrastructure around the world is not cheap. Although
historically low gasoline prices at the pump have encouraged
many US consumers to embrace trendy gas
guzzling light trucks and sport utility vehicles, forsaking
conservation efforts for wasteful convenience, all
Americans foot the bill for increasing foreign oil dependence
and the military costs (both in monetary and
social terms) associated with securing a steady supply
of oil. The United States economy remains heavily
dependent on oil and is likely to become increasingly
dependent on foreign oil as domestic production
dwindles over the next decade.
Ah yes, _but_ the US _needs_ this convenient excuse to meddle in other
countries' affairs and to "justify" their actions. Do not expect this
situation to ever change even though for all of the right reasons (as
mentioned here in this thread) it should. The US could not and will
not give-up this leverage.
 
On Jan 6, 12:48 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

This topic is going to get you into nothing but serious trouble with
the fossil fuel Mafia cabals and cartels.

I'll jerk a political knot into their fanny that just won't quit.

Don't forget about green/renewable energy that's making affordable H2
and h2o2,

Electrification is "shovel ready."

not to mention helping to create nifty synfuels (including
out of CO2).  There's also thorium reactors that'll give us clean and
failsafe energy at 10% the birth-to-grave cost of conventional nuclear
energy.

Bret Cahill
In deed it is "shovel ready". We need more of those clean and
efficient electrons and positrons doing our creator's work.

~ BG
 
On Jan 6, 12:58 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so
a few points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per unit
mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is
to stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat
gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs about
60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure that can
be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap. No
doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn something,
cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already in
ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of technologies
must be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel price.
It's the only way to inform people of what they right decision will
be.

I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000 lb
gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure is
small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important as
the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by batteries or
road electrification.

Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas then
the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be insanely
profitable.

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000 gallons/
acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

And this does not require a total destruction of the American
way of life or the centralized big brother crap associated with
everything needed for the electric car.  I am all for hybrids as a way to
move toward nuclear power.  But make no mistake.  That is where you are
going.

Not necessarily.

Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.

But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.

Bret Cahill
h2o2+synfuel or h2o2+aluminum makes a good pair of plan B methods on
behalf of renewable energy storage and of its portable energy usage.

~ BG
 
On Jan 7, 8:37 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so
a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is
to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)

You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid
Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.

Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just
turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great
net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any
city bus system.

I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.

What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?

But gasoline still wins.

Depends on what you optimize for.

If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the grid.

The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.

Bret Cahill

Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy independence,
Energy security, trade deficit, national debt, food-fuel price link leading
to destruction of prestine rainforests and nature preserves...

Isn't going to get the attention of Congress.

There are probably many more reasons why it makes sense to move away from
oil, and towards the grid for our ground transportation.
Simply stipulating a number for gas prices is in my opinion at least
misleading

We know it's true and we know it'll get the attention of Congress.

and grossly undervaluing the very profound and often unrecognized
grip that fossil fuels and oil specifically has on our western way of life.

One of which is how they manage to keep so many distracted from the
100% certain fact of the impending triple digit inflation of fuel
prices.

Currently, without fossil fuel (and oil specifically) our western
civilisation is not sustainable. If we want our grand children and great
grant children to live a lifestyle that is at least as good as we live, then
we better start making changes right now.
So this ship (our civilisation) is heading for the cliffs and without change
there will be an immense price to pay for future generations.

I'll worry about us before them and me before us.

Let's just see if we get to die from natural causes instead of some
geo war.

Bret Cahill
How about a thorium reactor in most every backyard, or in the center
of downtown wherever?

Thorium is failsafe-inclusive at merely 10% the all-inclusive birth-to-
grave cost of conventional nuclear energy that's anything but
failsafe. Problem is, you have to understand and appreciate what "all-
inclusive" represents, and not hardly 0.0001% of Americans do.

~ BG
 
rc wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:57:32 -0600, John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:

krw wrote:
In article <w4SdnS11MaTTUf7UnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
nhoj@droffats.ten says...
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard
of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have much higher
taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they
are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their standard of living.
Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.
More weenie nonsense.
I hope that tome of a response did't hurt you.


Quoting INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 1998

[... snip ...]

Ah yes, _but_ the US _needs_ this convenient excuse to meddle in other
countries' affairs and to "justify" their actions. Do not expect this
situation to ever change even though for all of the right reasons (as
mentioned here in this thread) it should. The US could not and will
not give-up this leverage.
I am not so cynical. The US might enter into a new relationship with
much of the world because it would be more profitable in terms of
survival, well being.
 
In article <48SdnTrjRuSScPnUnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@supernews.com>,
nohj@droffats.ten says...>
krw wrote:
In article <w4SdnS11MaTTUf7UnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
nhoj@droffats.ten says...
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard
of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have much higher
taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they
are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their standard of living.
Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.

More weenie nonsense.

I hope that tome of a response did't hurt you.
How could complete nonsense hurt?

<more nonsense clipped>
 
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:39:51 -0600, John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:

rc wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:57:32 -0600, John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:

krw wrote:
In article <w4SdnS11MaTTUf7UnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
nhoj@droffats.ten says...
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard
of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have much higher
taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they
are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their standard of living.
Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.
More weenie nonsense.
I hope that tome of a response did't hurt you.


Quoting INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 1998

[... snip ...]

Ah yes, _but_ the US _needs_ this convenient excuse to meddle in other
countries' affairs and to "justify" their actions. Do not expect this
situation to ever change even though for all of the right reasons (as
mentioned here in this thread) it should. The US could not and will
not give-up this leverage.

I am not so cynical. The US might enter into a new relationship with
much of the world because it would be more profitable in terms of
survival, well being.
Nay, they had the same opportunity 30 years ago but decided to become
even more dependent on foreign oil.


Get Real People!!!
 
krw wrote:

I hope that tome of a response did't hurt you.

How could complete nonsense hurt?

more nonsense clipped
Go back to sucking on batteries.
 
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

It's a few percent better than liquid fuels and that's only if you can
keep all releases in the entire distribution system below 3%.
Actually it's below 0.2%.

The total of all releases from the distribution system must be kept
below 0.2% for natural gas to have less of a greenhouse effect than
liquid fuels.


Bret Cahill
 
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:27:39 -0800, BradGuth wrote:

On Jan 7, 8:37 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a
natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is
concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the
impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with
electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they
agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy
per unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store
hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you
have something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when
C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near
the Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling
around.)

You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG
(Liquid Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public
transportation.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is
practical, unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar
nonsense.

Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco
MUNI just turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses. I actually
wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great net
of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the most
energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of
any city bus system.

I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean
(100K miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate
pressure.

What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?

But gasoline still wins.

Depends on what you optimize for.

If you optimize for some semblance of a western civilization
lifestyle, then ground transportation must be powered from the
grid.

The $10/gallon thingy just ain't gettin' it.

Bret Cahill

Lower cost of transportation, Peak Oil, Global Warming, Energy
independence, Energy security, trade deficit, national debt,
food-fuel price link leading to destruction of prestine rainforests
and nature preserves...

Isn't going to get the attention of Congress.

There are probably many more reasons why it makes sense to move away
from oil, and towards the grid for our ground transportation. Simply
stipulating a number for gas prices is in my opinion at least
misleading

We know it's true and we know it'll get the attention of Congress.

and grossly undervaluing the very profound and often unrecognized
grip that fossil fuels and oil specifically has on our western way of
life.

One of which is how they manage to keep so many distracted from the
100% certain fact of the impending triple digit inflation of fuel
prices.

Currently, without fossil fuel (and oil specifically) our western
civilisation is not sustainable. If we want our grand children and
great grant children to live a lifestyle that is at least as good as
we live, then we better start making changes right now. So this ship
(our civilisation) is heading for the cliffs and without change there
will be an immense price to pay for future generations.

I'll worry about us before them and me before us.

Let's just see if we get to die from natural causes instead of some geo
war.

Bret Cahill

How about a thorium reactor in most every backyard, or in the center of
downtown wherever?

Thorium is failsafe-inclusive at merely 10% the all-inclusive birth-to-
grave cost of conventional nuclear energy that's anything but failsafe.
Problem is, you have to understand and appreciate what "all- inclusive"
represents, and not hardly 0.0001% of Americans do.
I am not a scientist. I can make some very big mistakes like my
misunderstanding the Dimitrov stuff on photosynthesis. But I have never
counted myself as stupid and believe that I can explain science to the
unscientific pretty well given half a chance. So lay it on us about the
thorium and what this "all inclusive" might be.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:21:33 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:01:18 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Rob Dekker wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so
a few points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per unit
mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is
to stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. C(n)H(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill
And the storage problem...
I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat
gas)
They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs
about 60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure
that can be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60%
figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap. No
doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..


Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.


Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn something,
cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already in
ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of technologies
must be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel price.
It's the only way to inform people of what they right decision will
be.

Yup. You place a large excise tax on oil

That may not work.... demand is rising in Europe....

and redistribute the proceeds
as a an egalitarian citizen's dividend or a bottom weighted quarterly
"stimulus" like the one we had in 2008. You let the market decide what
technologies and innovations are best within this macro level tax and
stimulus operation.


Never happen....
Looks like the Les Cargill virus :)

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top