The Liberal/Progressive War on Science

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So you have 8lbs of gasoline that you can burn once and go 42 miles. Then you have the 435 lb battery you can charge over 1000 times (*) and go 35,000 miles. 435lbs of gas only gets you 2300 miles, and is a finite resource.

A couple of issues. The battery holds nothing more than a supply of potential energy. The gas tank holds nothing more than a supply of potential energy.

Your entire argument here is based on a cheat - changing gas to gas tank. In which case the weight just increased substantially - a gas tank with one (usable) gallon of gas weighs much more than 8lbs.

Saying electricity is a finite resource because the sun will go away in 4B years is an even lamer cheat. All of human existence (home sapien) is on order of 10-20k years. Oil has been in used for less than 150 years and will be largely gone in another 150 years, if not sooner. Don't you think it's dishonest to compare 300 years or 10,000 years with billions of years as if they're remotely equivalent? This is more of a reach than usual for you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

So you have 8lbs of gasoline that you can burn once and go 42 miles. Then you have the 435 lb battery you can charge over 1000 times (*) and go 35,000 miles. 435lbs of gas only gets you 2300 miles, and is a finite resource.

* 1000 charges is the usual figure for batteries in consumer electronics. i do not know the rating for batteries in cars, other than knowing that the Toyota hybrids have proven their longevity.

But, don't we, in most instances, have to burn fossil fuel to charge that battery?

At this point, I believe this to be a fairly accurate statement. However, it ignores the substantial different in efficiency of the energy supply. Gas engines turn 25-30% of the potential energy of gas into useful work, and expect mostly heat. Diesels can do a bit better. But then you have to factor in the incremental effort to refine to gas and then to ship it to gas stations everywhere.

In contrast, power plants have a much higher level of efficiency both in the burning of fossil fuels and then the transmission of that power direct to your home. And a portion of that may be supplied by hydropower, nuclear, solar, and wind.

ADD: most people would charge their cars overnight...during the period of least demand. This helps power plant efficiency as they run best when they run at full load. Having to cycle down and up eats into that. This does require infrastructure around the chargers to get the most out of it.

And last, if you use a real world example, like commuting from Oakland to San Francisco, or Long Beach to Santa Monica, you spend a lot of time in stop and go traffic. The electric engine doesn't waste any power idling, and is just as efficient accelerating from a standstill as it is going the limit.

[billvon 2,475]

>But, don't we, in most instances, have to burn fossil fuel to charge that battery?

Often yes. Here's SDG+E's energy mix:

Natural gas 62%
Nuclear 18%
Biomass 3%
Wind 7%
Coal 7%
Large hydro 3%

I generate 100% of my power from solar.

[lawrocket 3]

I used the analogy as an aside.

I did say that electricity is finite. I've been through enough summertime brownouts and rolling blackouts to know that the supplies are finite. As I explained when actually analyzing it, the supply is limited by generation capacity and distribution capacity. AND - much generation is based on fossil fuels, i.e., California uses natural gas for 45% of its in-state generation. California imports 30% of its power.

California's power generation and distribution system has had its troubles. Increased capacity AND increased distribution capabilities are needed in order to realize the potential of electrical vehicles.

Right now - it ain't there.

Quote

Your entire argument here is based on a cheat - changing gas to gas tank. In which case the weight just increased substantially - a gas tank with one (usable) gallon of gas weighs much more than 8lbs.

Not really. I understood your argument but I did take your data and analyzed it into a form a bit more useful. Your viewing it in terms of efficiency. But takign other steps out, as well.
(1) Power needed for manufacture of the battery:
(2) Opportunity cost in time to charge (which can be met if balanced appropriately)

I apologize for the otherwise flippant comment. But electricity is certainly finite, and that has to be considered.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,475]

>I did say that electricity is finite.

I disagree. If you have a solar power system (for example) you have an infinite energy source. The POWER is limited; you can draw it only at a rate given by the size of the system. But the ENERGY is effectively infinite. As long as the plant exists and the sun shines you get energy.

Now compare that to ten tons of coal. The energy is finite.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But the ENERGY is effectively infinite. As long as the plant exists and the sun shines you get energy.

Dear all - I regret my initial attempt to parse words. As ye sow, so also shall ye reap.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 390]

Quote

>I did say that electricity is finite.

I disagree. If you have a solar power system (for example) you have an infinite energy source. The POWER is limited; you can draw it only at a rate given by the size of the system. But the ENERGY is effectively infinite. As long as the plant exists and the sun shines you get energy.

Now compare that to ten tons of coal. The energy is finite.

Really, Really? Don't you understand that ALL fossil fuels art ultimately solar power. The only sources of energy on the planet are; solar, kinetic, (tidal and its kin) and nuclear. Coal, oil, natural gas, and any other hydrocarbon are ultimately solar.

[billvon 2,475]

>Really, Really? Don't you understand that ALL fossil fuels art ultimately solar power.

Yes, they are. They are effectively stored solar power. We are using them many orders of magnitude faster than they are being created. Stop doing that and all your problems go away.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

>But, don't we, in most instances, have to burn fossil fuel to charge that battery?

Often yes. Here's SDG+E's energy mix:

Natural gas 62%
Nuclear 18%
Biomass 3%
Wind 7%
Coal 7%
Large hydro 3%

I generate 100% of my power from solar.

That's cool. Since I am not a scientist or engineer, just a lower middle class conservative American, I generate 100% of my power by flipping a switch or turning the key in the ignition.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Coreece 190]

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

> At this time, petroleum is not very good for powering homes and the like, but is
>still most efficient for transportation.

In many places (primarily the Northeast) most of a home's energy comes from oil.

Since you parsed and picked at Lawrocket...

The heat may come from petroleum, but not the energy.

I have an oil burner. It heats my home very nicely using what is basically deisel fuel (maybe a bit on the spendy side of late, but oh well).

But my light, cooking (stove, micro, coffee pot, fridge - food storage), cleaning (washer, dryer vacuum, water heater), entertainment (TV, radio, computer and internet access), and A/C all come from electricity. Most of my electicity is hydro power, so it isn't petroleum (or other fossil fuel) based.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,475]

>That's cool. Since I am not a scientist or engineer, just a lower middle class
>conservative American, I generate 100% of my power by flipping a switch or turning
>the key in the ignition.

That's great. Other people are working on things like reducing your dependence on foreign oil and making sure that the power you get when you flip your switch is reliable.

[billvon 2,475]

>The heat may come from petroleum, but not the energy.

Heat is energy. Every source of energy we have (other than renewables) comes from heat. Burning coal, fissioning uranium, burning natural gas etc.

>I have an oil burner. It heats my home very nicely using what is basically deisel fuel
>(maybe a bit on the spendy side of late, but oh well).

Yes, and if you are like most Northeasterners, that's most of your energy usage (in kilowatt-hours, BTU's, whatever unit you like.)

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

Quote

Who gives a fuck?

I care. Because I am an altruist.

No you don't

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I did say that electricity is finite. I've been through enough summertime brownouts and rolling blackouts to know that the supplies are finite.

How often do you experience those brownouts overnight, when the cars would be charged? This is an open question - I know in my parts the brownouts only occur in the day time, but in the valley where AC usage is still high at night, perhaps that's not the same.

(Solar will not directly contribute here either - by the time you come home, the sun is dropping. That power is given to the grid during the day, and taken out at night, unless you implement a storage system.

Quote

(1) Power needed for manufacture of the battery:
(2) Opportunity cost in time to charge (which can be met if balanced appropriately)

1- yes, though it is a one time expenditure for those 1000+ charges. Each gallon of gas gets that expenditure. And when the battery stops taking a charge, you can rejuvenate the cores into a new battery.
2- opportunity cost is zero if you're charging at home overnight. It's extremely high, otoh, if you need to charge midway through a trip.

[brenthutch 390]

Quote

>That's cool. Since I am not a scientist or engineer, just a lower middle class
>conservative American, I generate 100% of my power by flipping a switch or turning
>the key in the ignition.

That's great. Other people are working on things like reducing your dependence on foreign oil and making sure that the power you get when you flip your switch is reliable.

How does oil know if it is foreign or not?

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

>The heat may come from petroleum, but not the energy.

Heat is energy. Every source of energy we have (other than renewables) comes from heat. Burning coal, fissioning uranium, burning natural gas etc.

>I have an oil burner. It heats my home very nicely using what is basically deisel fuel
>(maybe a bit on the spendy side of late, but oh well).

Yes, and if you are like most Northeasterners, that's most of your energy usage (in kilowatt-hours, BTU's, whatever unit you like.)

I know that heat is a form of energy. But I use a lot more energy in my home than just heating it. Although I must admit that much of that energy use has a side benefit of producing heat (a warm laptop is almost as nice as a cat on your lap on a cold winter day ), but that heat isn't a benefit when I have the A/C running.

I don't think that the majority of my energy consumption is used to heat the house. Perhaps a significant portion, but far from the majority. Even with heating oil (basically non-taxed deisel) as expensive as it is, it is less than half my total energy cost (electric bill for the entire year plus heating fuel).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Likewise, electricity has proven itself for providing power for fixed locations but is still in its infancy with moveable items.

Not so. Trains run on electricity. All freight and passenger trains are electric. Some by means of diesel generators, others by overhead cat lines or third rail. The first electric train was built in 1837. Siemens produced one in 1879. Elmer Sperry, the founder of the company I work for (Sperry Rail Service), formed the Sperry Electric Mining Machine Company and manufactured a small electric locomotive in 1892. Mr. Sperry patented and built the first electric car. He invented a car battery that could take a car for more than 100 miles on a single charge. When it came to proficient use of electricity, Elmer Sperry was the master. The use of electricity in movable items, such as cars and trains, is long pass the stage of infancy. We have only failed to carry on the great vision of those, such as Sperry, who envisioned a world ran on renewable energy. The attachment is SRS 134, a diesel electric rail flaw detector car sitting under cat lines in Atlanta GA, 1988. Sperry has since, mostly, phased out the rail-bound cars for use and we mostly use Hi-Rail trucks to test rail. The large rail cars were more efficient, fuel wise, than the trucks we now use.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[CanuckInUSA 0]

One size does not fit all. For people lucky enough to live in regions where hydro-electricity can be used to generate their power, well they need not worry too much about their carbon foot print on the planet (of course I do hope they realize that massive hydro-electric projects do have their own local ecological impacts such as massive flooding). Yes one size does not fit all. Some can claim that they can use solar for 100% of their needs, but these people do not live in cold climates where the temperatures can dip into the -30s and -40s and for those who get to experience arctic temperatures during the winter months, we only see about eight hours (or less) of the sun around the winter solstice. Yes solar panels could be used to supplement our electrical needs, but they can not be our sole source. Plus I have to plead ignorance on one topic, how well do solar panels hold up during hail storms? One size does not fit all. Some of use do not have access to hydro power, some of us get to deal with arctic temperatures and only see eight hours (or less) or the sun during the winter.

On a related note, a few weeks ago I read about a new motorsports racing series that was trying to get started. It is called "Formula E" which is supposed to rival "Formula 1" (I even heard rumors that they were trying to get disgruntled F1 driver Lewis Hamilton to join the series but I can't see the Brit jumping ranks, at least not yet). Anyway it would be interesting to see what would happen in the FE racing series. I know I would miss the sounds the F1 cars make, oh and they were saying they did need to make pit stops during their races. But instead of your standard refueling (done in some not all racing series) and changing tires, the drivers in this FE series would be forced to change cars (LOL can you imagine a racing series where the drivers sit in the pits for a few hours while their batteries recharge, yeah that is something I want to watch). So the teams will have to build about 2-3 cars per driver for the races alone (little talk about if multiple cars would be used in practice and qualifying) and little talk about what source of electricity would be used to charge the batteries. From a marketing point of view, I see why the FIA wants to see this "Formula Electric" series to become a reality, but I can't see how it would be cheaper if they want the FE cars to have the same performance capabilities that the F1 cars have. Hybrid cars are now a reality in the Lemans endurance racing series being used with success, except that the Hybrid technology being used in endurance racing is a completely different technology that what is available for modern road production Hybrids. So 100% electric powered racing cars still have a way to go before they replace carbon powered racing cars.

http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/08/20/fia-launches-new-formula-electric-racing-series/

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,475]

>I know that heat is a form of energy. But I use a lot more energy in my home than just heating it.

Definitely! But if you are like most people in the Northeast, most of that energy is in the form of heat. My family is from New York, and they definitely get most of their energy from home heating oil. On average in New York a person uses 6300 kwhr a year to heat their homes and uses 2000 kwhr of electricity a year. (Normally heat from natural gas or oil is measured in BTU, but they're easy to convert since they are both measures of energy.)

Note that most people (including my family) pay less overall for their heating fuel than for their electricity, but that's because oil (or gas) is a lot cheaper per kwhr than electricity.

[brenthutch 390]

Quote

>I know that heat is a form of energy. But I use a lot more energy in my home than just heating it.

Definitely! But if you are like most people in the Northeast, most of that energy is in the form of heat. My family is from New York, and they definitely get most of their energy from home heating oil. On average in New York a person uses 6300 kwhr a year to heat their homes and uses 2000 kwhr of electricity a year. (Normally heat from natural gas or oil is measured in BTU, but they're easy to convert since they are both measures of energy.)

Note that most people (including my family) pay less overall for their heating fuel than for their electricity, but that's because oil (or gas) is a lot cheaper per kwhr than electricity.

That is exactly what I have been trying to point out for the last three years.

[brenthutch 390]

Quote

>Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume.

Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 2 - There is a finite amount of oil, and we WILL reach a point where it's no longer possible to recover it any more as a source of energy. If we keep using it, that is.

Let me get this straight. Your point is that if we keep using it we won’t be able to use it? That logic does hurt my little brain.
My thinking is that, the sooner we burn through this, polar bear killing, global warming, planet destroying, climate changing, acid raining source of energy the better. Why do you want to prolong the pain? Let us use up all of this fossil fuel and then we would have no other alternative than to switch to wind, solar, and unicorn farts.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 2

Did anyone else get to the end of the article and think "Wait, where are Stubborn Scientific Fact Numbers 2, 3, et al?"

Someday, right-wingers will learn proper spelling and grammar. When that day comes, others might just listen to them. I feel as if I'm reading something written by a kindergartner.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[lawrocket 3]

"Why do you have that wine?"
"Because it's the best!"
"Well then drink it."
"Can't do that. Too valuable."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,475]

> Your point is that if we keep using it we won’t be able to use it? That logic does hurt
>my little brain.

OK, here it is in expanded form.

It takes energy to recover oil. When we first started drilling oil, the ratio of energy returned to energy invested (EROEI) was around 100:1. Use a little energy to drill a hole in the ground and a lot of energy (in the form of oil) would come gushing out.

After 100 years or so we've tapped all the easy to get oil, so now we're going after the hard to get oil. (Tar sands, shale oil etc.) The EROEI on such sources is a lot lower - on the order of 3:1.

Once it gets to 1:1, it will take a barrel of oil in energy to drill a barrel of oil. All the mental gymnastics in the world will not make that a usable source of energy.

> Let us use up all of this fossil fuel and then we would have no other alternative than
> to switch to wind, solar, and unicorn farts.

And the "drill, baby, drill!" variety of hot air.