Time to electrify the economy

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by tholland

I think the US needs to drill first and ask questions later. Urgency can certainly speed up developing new technology, but a virtual gun to the head hasn't exactly provided clarity as to how to proceed with the energy problem

No, but $4+ per gallon gasoline sure has.

Don't drill, conserve. Drilling isn't the panacea everyone wishes it to be. Unless the bottom drops out of oil, the price isn't going to go down anytime soon, regardless of whether or not we tap ANWR.

[tholland]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

No, but $4+ per gallon gasoline sure has.

Don't drill, conserve. Drilling isn't the panacea everyone wishes it to be. Unless the bottom drops out of oil, the price isn't going to go down anytime soon, regardless of whether or not we tap ANWR.

Hence the term "virtual". I was referring to gas and oil prices... but they really have only produced a panic effect so far... there is no real advancement toward a national energy policy. And you are correct... conservation helps, but it won't solve the problem alone... the US needs to cut down on oil imports and the best way to do that is to use the vast amounts of oil reserves within and off it's shores.

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by usa1

Sounds great, but then consider you need to burn something to make the electricity. Coal is a nice abundant local resource, but the climate change winds are blowing that fuel source away because of the evil of CO2. The same people that hate coal happen to hate nuclear too because they watched the "China Syndrome" when they grew up.

What does this leave us with? Solar cells and wind power? Sorry folks, but the costs are still many multiples too high and don't scale well or work for a large portion of the day.

Everyone agrees we need to do SOMETHING about breaking the oil addiction, but NOT ONE politician is being honest with people when they say conservation and alternative power sources can solve the problem. A program that balances investments in alternative wind/solar power with conservation AND WITH increases in local energy sources like coal, nuclear, oil from places like ANWR is what is needed.

Mark

Frankly, I could give a flip what they burn as long as it's domestic.
The use nuke here and have for a long time. Too bad we can't get some more of that.

the US needs to cut down on oil imports and the best way to do that is to use the vast amounts of oil reserves within and off it's shores.

Naw, we'll just let the Cubans / Chinese do it.
Although I'd be cool with it if we could point at that and then go drill just off the coast of Saudi Arabia...

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by jckjds

I think it is hugely important to get electric cars on the roads. However, I think that it is going to take more than that to fix all of our energy problems.

Foremost, we need better conservation measures. People need to be encouraged and incentivized to use less energy - in their cars, in their homes, in general. I think that one of the biggest helps would be (1) to encourage people to live closer to work and (2) to improve mass transit in areas where mass transit could be practical and beneficial. The horsepower wars need to stop. There is a reason that 4 cyl engines dominate the mid-size car market -- most people don't give a ***** about 0-60 times. If the car can behave competently at highway speeds, then great. To be sure, there can and should still be some niche performance cars, but not every vehicle needs to have a 300 hp V-6. I'd be willing to bet that a small displacement DI v-6 with mileage competitive with most I-4's would be a bigger seller than huge displacement 300 hp V-6's available in many cars now.

Once we have minimized our energy use, then we will need several different energy sources -- to ultimately meet those needs. Electric cars should be a huge portion of that, but I believe there will still be ICE cars -- at least for the next several decades. Obviously the growth of electric cars will curb oil consumption, lowering prices and extending the available supply. Furthermore, even moderate ethanol blending/use will further assist with cost and supply issues. Hydrogen and electricity will probably be long-long term solutions, but the ICE will still be around for a long time.

In the near term, we should be tapping every possible oil source that we can. The sooner we are capable of meeting at least some of our oil needs, the better off we will be. As long as exploration is combined with alternative and renewable fuel development, then such exploration would merely be a short term stop-gap solution to a serious problem. Failing to start the process of exploration now will screw us in the future -- as it takes a substantial amount of time to develop new oil fields/off shore drilling areas.

These are good solutions, but the best solutions would still allow us to drive what we want, live in the kind of house we want/where we want, etc. I live in a house that is twice as big as the last one but we save $1000 on electricity a year. So I believe it's possible to continue living the way we do without making sacrifices. This is the easiest way, but again IMO the best way will allow us to make no changes to our lifestyles, and I believe it is possible.

Tell me why we can't drive large, powerful, and roomy vehicles equipped with electric engines that can use little to no fuel? Why does it have to be drive a Geo or a Prius?

[stillen]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

No, but $4+ per gallon gasoline sure has.

Don't drill, conserve. Drilling isn't the panacea everyone wishes it to be. Unless the bottom drops out of oil, the price isn't going to go down anytime soon, regardless of whether or not we tap ANWR.

Drilling means we have more control over our energy supply than they meaning middle eastern countries which is a GREAT thing.

Prices would stabilize and come down some.

So Drill drill and DRILL go after coal even Mcain says its time to drill of the our coast.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by stillen

Drilling means we have more control over our energy supply than they meaning middle eastern countries which is a GREAT thing.

Prices would stabilize and come down some.

So Drill drill and DRILL go after coal even Mcain says its time to drill of the our coast.

The majority of the oil we use comes from Canada and Mexico, only 19% is from the Middle East. Do we need to B-slap Canada to get our prices lowered? Shall we invade Mexico and restore (non-corrupt) Democracy? It is the demand from China and India that is hurting us, well, that and the idiot speculators. It isn't the Middle East - but I'd still like to eliminate that 19% - that is hurting us.

[HotCarNut]

Originally Posted by tholland

I think the US needs to drill first and ask questions later. Urgency can certainly speed up developing new technology, but a virtual gun to the head hasn't exactly provided clarity as to how to proceed with the energy problem

Sorry, no. The problem isn't really the supply of oil itself in the US. It's a lack of refining capacity since no new refineries of any size have come online in the last 10 years. Even if we drilled and tapped those oil fields in Alaska and off of the continental shelf, we still couldn't refine it and put it on the road to ease the supply constraints. Remember, the constraints are on gas and diesel which are oil BYPRODUCTS, not on the oil itself.

[HotCarNut]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

The majority of the oil we use comes from Canada and Mexico, only 19% is from the Middle East. Do we need to B-slap Canada to get our prices lowered? Shall we invade Mexico and restore (non-corrupt) Democracy? It is the demand from China and India that is hurting us, well, that and the idiot speculators. It isn't the Middle East - but I'd still like to eliminate that 19% - that is hurting us.

*tongue firmly in cheek* Why haven't we just done what we should have done 100 years ago and announced that Canada's provinces and Mexico's states are really in the United States and that Canada and Mexico aren't really countries anymore?!?! Oh wait, then we'd actually have to pay the Mexicans that still live in Mexico (the 30% that haven't legally or illegally entered the US) the legal US minimum wage, give them voting rights, and access to healthcare, social security, and government assistance. Plus those crazy guys in the southwest wouldn't be able to drive their 4 x 4's along the border as a citizen's militia anymore......heaven forbid we take away their fun.....

On a more serious note, the answer is nuclear. The problems that the US faces aren't just high oil prices, but are also due to environmental concerns. Climate change, high air pollution levels, more extreme weather, and the massive pollution of the Gulf of Mexico have changed people's attitudes. No doubt that the high gas prices have further galvanized America, but most of the regulation that has been passed or is being considered was due to climate change not $4 a gallon gas.

[DemonKnightDK]

I'd be all for a large (bonniville, LeSabre, Aurura) sized car with an electric engine/motor 170HP and lord knows how much TQ.. the baterys are still the issue. but what if they used 4 smaller motors at each wheel? run two for most of the time, then in slick conditions, they other two kick in for AWD, that should be preaty easy to package I would think.

I'd love to put solar pannels on my garage, if I had one. It amazes me that so many people think every one has a garage.. hell the way my town is I probably would pay more to get a permit to install solar on my roof than it would cost for the solor pannels.

If the government is that big on change, they need to help retro fit old houses with insulation, new more efficent heating and cooling options, and maybe even solar pannles.. cause have you looked a the price of a new effcient heating system?

I think the real issues are with housing and not so much the auto world.

[jckjds]

Originally Posted by PA Dweller

These are good solutions, but the best solutions would still allow us to drive what we want, live in the kind of house we want/where we want, etc. I live in a house that is twice as big as the last one but we save $1000 on electricity a year. So I believe it's possible to continue living the way we do without making sacrifices. This is the easiest way, but again IMO the best way will allow us to make no changes to our lifestyles, and I believe it is possible.

Tell me why we can't drive large, powerful, and roomy vehicles equipped with electric engines that can use little to no fuel? Why does it have to be drive a Geo or a Prius?

True, the best solutions would allow us to live where and how we want, but the fact is that transitioning from one energy source to another will be greatly aided by conservation. That is, the less energy we use, the easier it will be to find a replacement for our current energy source. As you can see currently, our lust for energy has made us so dependent on oil that the current energy crunch is becoming VERY damaging to our ecomony. Bad economy = people aren't able to live the "good lives" that you appear to be preaching for. THAT is why I think conservation is an important first step.

So, what I am saying is that, under the circumstances, conservation measures could go a long way to easing the transition from oil to alternatives. In the meantime, though, I think we should be drilling anywhere oil can be found in order to ease the pain of the transition. And I definitely don't buy this "pristine wilderness" crap. It's frozen freaking tundra. Furthermore, there are no more oil "gushers." I can't imagine that drilling for oil today is really all that big of a deal from an environmental standpoint. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

Finally, I definitely support you living in a large house (hell, I live in a relatively large house), but that doesn't excuse us from doing our part to make our houses efficient, which it appears you are already doing. Many efficiency measures are simply common sense -- like using flourescent bulbs, turning off lights, etc. In the long run, I'd also like to see more new houses using geothermal heat pumps instead of natural gas heaters, and similar efforts to make housing more efficient in the future. Just the little things to make us more efficient as a nation -- many of which are totally transparent to the average person.

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by jckjds

True, the best solutions would allow us to live where and how we want, but the fact is that transitioning from one energy source to another will be greatly aided by conservation. That is, the less energy we use, the easier it will be to find a replacement for our current energy source. As you can see currently, our lust for energy has made us so dependent on oil that the current energy crunch is becoming VERY damaging to our ecomony. Bad economy = people aren't able to live the "good lives" that you appear to be preaching for. THAT is why I think conservation is an important first step.

So, what I am saying is that, under the circumstances, conservation measures could go a long way to easing the transition from oil to alternatives. In the meantime, though, I think we should be drilling anywhere oil can be found in order to ease the pain of the transition. And I definitely don't buy this "pristine wilderness" crap. It's frozen freaking tundra. Furthermore, there are no more oil "gushers." I can't imagine that drilling for oil today is really all that big of a deal from an environmental standpoint. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

Finally, I definitely support you living in a large house (hell, I live in a relatively large house), but that doesn't excuse us from doing our part to make our houses efficient, which it appears you are already doing. Many efficiency measures are simply common sense -- like using flourescent bulbs, turning off lights, etc. In the long run, I'd also like to see more new houses using geothermal heat pumps instead of natural gas heaters, and similar efforts to make housing more efficient in the future. Just the little things to make us more efficient as a nation -- many of which are totally transparent to the average person.

I am willing to conserve, but not to the point where I have to drive a car smaller than an Aveo and life in a 500 sq ft apartment. I say lets drill for the oil under our own feet, our needs are more important than natures. No, I don't advocate clear cutting forest, but we need a near term solution until these alternatives come into play. We already switched to using CFL in most of our lamps. It's even saving us $20 a month on our electric bill. We use a heat pump which I believe is much more efficient than the oil burner we had in our old home. People label big homes as inefficient but it's untrue. We came from a 1300 sq ft home to a 2400 sq ft home and look at our electric bill. Plus we have things in this house that the other house didn't have like a Dishwasher and Central A/C. It's just that homes need to be built with efficient at mind.

[logansowner]

Originally Posted by 377Z

I have concern for the grid as well.

Hopefully it will lead to upgrading the grid, though that will be expensive.

Very true, but that $700,000,000,000 that's sent out of the US for oil each year could fix a lot of grid problems.

There is not goign to be a perfect solution, everything is going to be hard, depends on whether we want it to be hard and keep money here, or be hard and send money out.

[PhishPhood]

The 'solution' has to be a multi-faceted one. The situation is not going away and it's very likely that it will worsen. Luckily we are inventive types with a lot of ingenuity. Absorbing pain while doing nothing is not one of our characteristics. In addition, and this is really key, GREED, PROFIT, FILTHY LUCRE will cause innovations to come to market just because we will pay to make the pain go away.

Conservation has to be part of the solution. It will gov't mandated and common sense in the population will prevail.

Hybrids are here already and they will increase dramatically.

Increased electric usage will be the first new innovation after the hybrids simply because the infrastructure in already in place and the technology is almost ready for Prime Time.

Alternate fuels are right behind Electric Vehicles but it appears that wide spread use/distribution is 10 yrs out.

Fuel Cell Hydrogen powered vehicles are probably 10+ yrs out as well.

All of these will be put to use by all of us. Imagine how complicated it will be to buy a vehcle in the future.

EV? PHEV? EREV? Hybrid? Gasser? Diesel? powered by Petrofuel? Corn Ethanol, Celluosic Ethanol? Sugar Cane Ethanol? Butanol? Biodiesel from algae or chicken fat or peanut oil? Electricity from the Sun or Nukes or Coal or Hydropower?

It used to be Beige, Silver or Blue?

[377Z]

Originally Posted by logansowner

Very true, but that $700,000,000,000 that's sent out of the US for oil each year could fix a lot of grid problems.

There is not goign to be a perfect solution, everything is going to be hard, depends on whether we want it to be hard and keep money here, or be hard and send money out.

Trouble is, the kids on this site seem to think simple stuff like everybody will always charge their cars only at night, & don't consider the eventual need for more powerplants & grid if electric car sales take off, along with the various hiccups and extreme expense of creating new powerplants thanks to draconian regulation, and .

Hence my comment that hopefully the grid will be upgraded. There is a difference between acknowledgement of the challenges of a course of action and simply throwing stones.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by 377Z

Trouble is, the kids on this site seem to think simple stuff like everybody will always charge their cars only at night, & don't consider the eventual need for more powerplants & grid if electric car sales take off, along with the various hiccups and extreme expense of creating new powerplants thanks to draconian regulation, and .

Hence my comment that hopefully the grid will be upgraded. There is a difference between acknowledgement of the challenges of a course of action and simply throwing stones.

Car sales can't take off, grown steadily perhaps but not boom. We are a mature market now with about 1 vehicle for every driving-age adult. How many vehicles can one drive at a time? Now our population will grow naturally. In 20+ yrs we will have 25% more of us then so there should be 25% more drivers as well but the cost of driving may force a lot of potential drivers out of the market.

Examples for comparison:
In China there's one vehicle for every 7 driving-age adults. China's population is 5 times greater than ours. ( How many people in your house? Now multiply that by 5. Next door? ).
In India there's one vehicle for every 17 driving-age adults. It's population is 4 times greater than ours.
Those are the markets that will really be growing.