How N. Dakota Became Saudi Arabia

I believe it, too many different ways of designing batteries for size and type. While oil will still have a presence, it's better to start making this a primary concern instead of big oil attempting to go back to status quo.

 

Because maybe you like clean air and clean water? I'm sure it is disappointing when someone doesn't share your view that the earth is a resource that should be depleted until there is nothing left.

 

translation: Oil is ONLY going to get more expensive.

translation: Now that oil is expensive we can go back to burning oil from the US, so that we can give the monopoly back to the middle east. Known US oil supplies: 1000 days. That isn't even Chu's five years.

translation: Even though I have enough money to be able to give half of it to charity, I still want more.

 

I can sympathize with Hamm.

The electrification argument is that rapid technological developments in batteries/etc. will soon make EV's cheaper/better than gaso. However, this argument is flawed because notable technological advances are also being made in fossil fuel arena. The competition is not standing still.

Re: the 130 MPGe battery comment, if achievable, Chu is not talking about fossil fuel burning MPG equivalents. You'd still need to burn coal/etc. to fill 'er up. It is probably something like 40-60 MPG fossil fuel burning MPG equivalents, depending on your local power fuel mix. Not too shabby, but cheaper/better?

 

It should be remembered this is a WSJ editorial and not an article. While the WSJ has excellent articles and reporting, their editorial page has an agenda. These paragraphs highlight what they are trying to do.

The first part is regulation, which is awful today. Drilling permits should be streamlined, but with environmental concerns in the mix. Now it seems there are just red tape delays and paperwork, but the environment is not been corrected. This needs to be reformed, and I agree with the WSJ here, but probably not in how it should be done.

In the beginning of the editorial we learn how profitable these things are. If we reduce corporate welfare to the oil industry they will still drill. Carter's tax favored foreign over domestic production, which is quite different, and did reduce domestic supply while not garnering tax revenue. The government needs to close the loopholes to stop subsidizing oil companies.

 

Hamm is talking about this decade, while chu and obama are talking long term. Even if Hamm's estimates are correct, and they are very optimistic, there is no way techology of fuel efficiency will do much in 20-50 years with decreasing easy oil to pump.

The leaf is rated at 99 MPGe, chu is only talking about a 30% improvement. In 20 years the grid should be much cleaner and oil much more expensive and difficult to refine. Hamm is quite right if we only talk about this decade, but how fast will we develop these things if we wait until the oil is gone. Electrification is a very small subsidy compared to the oil subsidies that Hamm collects.

 

Withdrawn

 

its clear Hamm has no respect for the planet and what greenhouse gases are doing to it, from warming it up to more severe storms and droughts, to ocean acidification. He would make it all worse.

 

I doubt we're going to see any significant improvement in ICE efficiency. So far most significant increases in ICE efficiency have come through hybridization. Friction reduction strategies have resulted in the rest. Things like aerodynamic improvements and other drivetrain friction reductions also apply to EVs as well.

A good amount of work has been put into spark-less gas engines to reduce pumping losses under light load, but all this will do is bring as engines up to efficiency levels of diesels.

Big power plants burning fossil fuels have had plenty of incentive to improve efficiency - especially any area which is dependent on oil for electricity generation (Hawaii, Middle East). Yet aside from co-generation or CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine), there have been no significant advances in fossil fuel plant efficiency.

Centralized fossil fuel power plants have a lot of advantages over millions of tiny ones. Worst case let's say the entire automotive fleet switches from gas to electric - now if you really still need the power - just start building gasoline power plants. Run at near constant load, these should be more efficient and cleaner (though on the whole perhaps not

 

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think wjtracy was talking about improvements in the finding and recovering of oil and natural gas.
There's a recent report (Sept. 15th I think) from the National Petroleum Council (made up of industry leaders, academia, and some involved in alternative sources) to the Obama administration detailing the latest numbers and our supply of oil. They're saying there's a lot more oil and natural gas available than what was given just a few years ago, mostly because of improvements in fracking and horizontal drilling (this is what opened up the Bakken field in North Dakota). It's not as cheap as traditional wells, but it's there.

Even that report acknowledges we need to contain greenhouse emissions (that was part of the parameters they were given for the study). They suggested using natural gas more for electricity (instead of dirty coal) and for transportation, offsetting some gasoline. Also, CO2 can be sequestered and pushed down into feeder wells to force more oil out the other wells in the field. That's already being done in some cases, the trick is to cheaply get the CO2. Saudi Arabia is pushing down sea water into their fields to increase the pressure.

It's interesting that OPEC can't control the price anymore. A couple years ago (early 2008?) Saudi Arabia said they wouldn't increase production beyond the next year because they wanted to keep oil for future generations to sell. Translation: they can no longer fake it that they have unlimited supplies. Oil prices rose, George Bush went to Saudi Arabia, hat in hand, asking for more oil, and they didn't give it to him. Eventually our economy tanked and here we are.

 

I can understand him to a point. Obviously Hamm is pushing his own agenda, but battery improvements have been promised for a long time, and we're still waiting for a magic bullet. You can't rest your economy on the idea that this will become feasible and in widespread use in just a few years. Bush and some Republicans (including Schwarzennagger) put their faith into fuel-cell vehicles (canceling the government-funded PNGV program which was helping domestic car companies develop hybrid technologies before the Prius was introduced). Of course, fuel-cells turned out to be a big boondoggle and cost GM about a billion dollars before they figured that out. Ford was out money too, but not as much, may be why they didn't go bankrupt in 2009.

I would like to see more natural gas vehicles. That's a proven technology, economical, cleaner than gasoline and we have enough natural gas in the U.S. Battery electric vehicles are a good idea, but not ready for the mass market yet.

 

Texas Clean Energy Project - A Coal Gasification Plant Based on IGCC

Even so, there just isn't enough domestic oil, and other power sources need to be substituted like natural gas, wind, and sun in the transportation sector.

 

Yes exactly, a few years ago Texas oilmen applied horizontal drilling technology to natural gas in shale and blew the lid off USA supply projections. To some extent, oil has similar potential for increases, as we are seeing in North Dakota. Just saying popular culture feels there is more technology improvement possible in battery arena, and not "old" technology like oil. However, to be honest, batteries are older than oil. Edison himself complained about battery technology hype in the late 1800's.

 

... I like IGCC. Might as well throw coal into the future mix too.

As far as OP, Obama admin has been accused of not cheer-leading for fossil fuel advances, nat gas etc. Seems to be what WSJ is trying to say. But the big decision coming soon is Keystone pipeline approval. Interesting decision for Obama admin, but from what I've heard in the media, it will probably be approved. If so, this will mute some of the criticism.

 

Why ? How? It's all money and politics baby always has been and always will be period.

 

Part of what helped Ford avoid bankruptcy was the fact that they pretty much mortgaged every single asset they owned in late 2007 (i believe). Even their logo was part of the assets, and they are currently heavily in debt because of it. They've done great over the last couple years, and have paid down a good chunk of that debt. The problem is, most of that was 5-7 yr debt terms, and will be coming due in the next couple years. My biggest concern for them will be obtaining sufficient funding to essentially refinance what's left.

 

"... improvements in [] recovering oil and natural gas" ... now that's about as slick a way to couch one of the most destructive/criminal activities that the power industry has yet come up with. Oh, wait - did I say criminal? Never mind - I forgot. Fracking has been made exempt from the clean air/water act, as well as any legal discovery of any/all of the flammable/carcinogens used in the process. What an irony - that over fifty years ago Cleveland's Cuyahoga River (polluted for local industry's various toxic flammable stews) caught fire, and in part, it was that event acted as a catalyst to create federal clean water legislation.

Not any more. Now days we instead report, "improvements in recovering oil and natural gas" - rather than send these kinds of people off the jail.
But hey ... it's more jobs, right? and that's all that matters, right?
.

 

right.

 

Honda makes an NGV Civic. What about Toyota?

Where's the Prius NGV?

Where's the Prius PHV NGV ?

.