Wow, Wow, Wow, Bush!

If we go from 20 bln gallons a day of oil use in 2005 to a tiny decrease to only 19 bln gallons a day by 2015, we are truly doomed.

IMO, our only hope for survival is to get closer to 15 bln barrels a day by then, and maybe closer to 10.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HYACK\";p=\"98907)</div>

It's a Toyota Europe PR image. The UK Prius brochure uses it on its cover.

You can download other similar pics from http://www.toyota-europe.com/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"98906)</div>

Let me reiterate my point. Bush can promote energy efficiency, disagree with the Senate measures to reduce it by 5% and not be hypocritical. This could be becauses he sees this as unrealistic, cost-prohibitive, or bad for the economy (the article does not detail what these measures are). The article you posted heavily of the cost being the issue and has a quote about the increase in efficiency needed negatively impacting safety.

Or perhaps his view is 1% or 2% while the 5% required by the measures is too much at this time. Or that you can increase efficiency and not see a drop in the demand over the next ten years because of population growth (so more people driving and driving longer). Or that we can increase efficiency by encouraging automakers and buyers to buy hybrids by not stepping in as gas gets higher. This is really all conjecture cause no one really knows the reasons behind his rejecting of the measures.

My first thought is not that he is hypocritical as soon as he says he wants efficiency but rejects the measures (simply because of the possible myriad of reasons why). I can say that I think everyone should drive a hybrid but disagree with Congressional measures to force dealers to sell a certain number of hybrid cars per month or something along those lines.

I would just hope that the market will show the viability and importance of efficient vehicles without the government having to spend an inordinate amount of money.


EDIT: Prius04: I really hope that our demand is decreased by 2015 as well. Again keep in mind that we have to fight the population growth, people living and driving longer, and the tendency for people to drive more because it is cheaper. A 5% decrease in the face of these would be great IMO. I also would wholeheartedly love a 50% or 75% decrease and be using renewable energy sources almost entirely.

 

A very serious problem in the past with this administration had absolutely nothing to do with money. They simply refused to acknowledge that hybrids were even a viable option. They endorsed hydrogen as a solution instead.

It's the fact that they were ignoring hybrids entirely that ticked a lot of us off. Not even getting verbal support was very frustrating.

Imagine if they had been cheering for hybrids over the last 4 years. The Detroit automakers would have been encourage by that support, rather than claiming hybrids were a waste of effort. Remember the whole "stop gap" nonsense? And remember how the administration claimed hybrids would result in job losses?

Now its becoming obvious that the Prius supporters were right all along. So... will they start cheering for us now?

Whether there is a credit or not is not vital. It's the fact that they're actually talking about hybrids as a choice that will make a difference in the long run.

 

I wouldn't get too excited, John. Bush is a duplicitous bastard who will say anything to assage his critics and do anything to please his corporate supporters and is not at all bothered by the discrepancy or hypocrisy

That he has not been impeached only demonstrates how corrupt the government is and how complacent the electorate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"98906)</div>

The quote you are working off of from the article you posted is:

"The White House opposes measures in the Senate bill that direct the president to reduce U.S. oil demand by 1 million barrels per day by 2015."

That sounds like a fairly sweeping generalization, and I'd like to know what the legislation actually says, because it doesn't make a bit of sense.

How can the President (any President) be directed to reduce the US demand of anything, unless it is a reduction in the quantity used by the Administrative Branch of government or the military. The President can't make or pass laws; at best he can only propose them, which is what Bush is doing with the tax credit.

And anyhow, it is absolutely possible to support the reduction of oil demand while opposing specific legislation aimed at reducing oil demand. There are at least two ways you can reduce oil demand: One is to offer incentives to consumers and industry that would allow market forces to cause a shift from oil consumption to some other fuel source. Another way (purposely extreme to make a point) is to ban oil altogether. Republicans lean towards the former, Democrats lean towards the latter. A Republican can support using market forces to reduce demand, while opposing banning oil altogether. Democrats can support arbitrary limits on oil consumption while opposing market incentives.

Some people need to stop listening to Air America and start thinking for themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a\";p=\"99032)</div>

I think it has been proven out that the car industry no longer needed government grants to bring hybrids into the market place. The evidence is in the Prius you own, the line you waited in to buy it, and the fact that by this time next year, there will be 19 different models of hybrids from Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Nissan, Ford, Mercury, GM, Dodge, Chevrolet, and Saturn.

But in case you haven't noticed, your Prius still uses gasoline. Now is the time to start pumping money into grants for research and development of hydrogen fuel cell cars so that they can be brought out into the market place. Hydrogen fuel cell cars will not happen without government intravention, because it requires more than just making a car; it requires a nation wide infrastructure. And building something like that in a reasonable time frame requires a little push from the government.

 

Why?

What benefit will hydrogen provide?

How come a "full" hybrid with expanded electric abilities is not considered a viable solution?

People are being greenwashed into believe fuel-cells will solve the fuel problem, but can never explain why.

In other words, what is the purpose?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal\";p=\"99025)</div>

You are certainly free to see this as not hypocritical, but I think its the height of hypocrisy.

You do realize that the aspect of the bill that calls for energy savings of 1 million barrels/day carries no proscription on how to do it, nor does it entail any built in costs. It's simply a recommendation that the President do something. That is the reason why the article does not detail what they are, the details on how to save that energy is being left up to the President.

Now other aspects of that bill are arguably too expensive in that there is tons of PORK in that bill. If Bush vetoes the bill like he has threatened to, it will be his first veto. This President has done zero to keep his party's pork spending in check so far.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a\";p=\"99127)</div>

The purpose is to have vehicles using energy that is not derived from oil. If things continue as they are, in 20 or 30 years even a high-tech gas/electric hybrid that puts the Prius to shame in terms of efficiency may be useless to the average citizen. Gasoline could become essentially unobtainable. Look at the exponential decay part of Hubbert's curve, and think about the economic implications...

-- David
(My first post... I'm looking for a Salsa Red package #4.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dwhysong\";p=\"99556)</div>

Welcome to Priuschat and have fun with your car.

And John certainly doesn't need help with this, he is more than capable to discuss this without my help, but I'll put some points in before he does.

So, the purpose of hydrogen is to get energy that is not derived from oil? Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make hydrogen? Do you have any idea on where that energy will come from?

There is very close to zero doubt that any hydrogen that gets manufactured will be manufactured using fossil fuels, coal or nuclear. And it will take LOTS of fossil fuels, coal or nuclear. And the coal and or nuclear will be used to make electricity, and that electricity will be used to make hydrogen. So can you explain to me why making hydrogen is so superior to storing that same electricity in batteries? And the battery infrastructure is already on its way, thanks to the hybrid. The hydrogen infrastructure is decades away, and billions of dollars away.

And don't tell me that the batteries aren't here yet. Of course they aren't, but neither are the fuel cells. And from what I've read, batteries as a replacement for the ICE is about 15 years ahead of hydrogen. Maybe 20.

The Prius proves it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"99566)</div>

Hi Danny, and thanks for the welcome...

I know what is involved in making hydrogen - I'm a physicist! The point is to use hydrogen as energy storage to power a vehicle via the fuel cell. The energy has to be generated by another source... but any source will do. And when fossil fules become scarce, renewable energy sources (or perhaps nuclear) will be more economical.

You can't very easily power a gas-electric hybrid car from wind power. But producing hydrogen from wind-generated electricity is a straightforward process.

Pure electric cars still don't have decent range, and can't be built to "normal car" standards like a gas-electric hybrid such as the Prius. Hydrogen doesn't get the job done either, but it has much better energy storage than batteries (per unit mass).

That's the bottom line, really - gasoline has tremendous stored energy per unit mass. Batteries just can't compete. Hydrogen is also good by that measure, though it unfortunately has low mass density in gas phase. This is why we're all posting to a forum for a gas-electric hybrid, instead of a pure electric vehicle.

-- David

 

I'm not Danny.

You are right that electric-only cars in 2005 don't have the range to compete. But are you suggesting, as a physicist, that they never can?

And although I understand that hydrogen has energy per unit mass storage capacities more in line with gasoline, doesn't hydrogen have some storage problems that we have not yet solved?

Mark

 

So... should I start listing my MPG instead as MPGoG (of Gas)?

Since the fuel I use is E10, I'm only consuming 90% gas. That makes the total of 735.649 gallons is actually only 662.084 ...which calculates to 54.1 MPG, rather than the 48.6 MPG listed on my homepage.

That 10% is renewable and not derived from oil, fulfilling the requirement to reduce consumption.

E85 is available in these parts. Imagine if my Prius had been fitted to use that (now well-proven technology). The value would calculate to 324.3 MPGoG.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"99596)</div>

Er, sorry for the confusion... I got an email notification from Danny, thought that was you.

I won't say that future battery technology can't do the job, but it doesn't seem very plausible. The energy densities possible from hydrocarbon chemical bonds are higher than I'd expect to see in a battery. After all, batteries operate by chemical reaction also, but they require electrolytes and insulators etc... by nature, a battery is a more complex and less portable means of storing energy.

Also, batteries are sensitive to current leakage, internal resistance, and voltage drop at low temperature. New battery technologies (Lithium ion, lithium polymer) improve over older batteries in these respects, but still come nowhere near the energy density, stability, and reliability of hydrocarbons.

And yes, hydrogen has a storage problem. It has decent energy per unit mass, but since it's a gas at standard temperature and pressure and the lightest of elements, it has low energy density per unit volume. Current hydrogen vehicles use high pressure carbon-fiber storage tanks and still have short range.

I'm not convinced that pure hydrogen is the answer either. There are fuel cells that also refine hydrogen from methane or (I think?) ethanol. Those might be more effective fuels in the long run. I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to fuel cell technology though.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a\";p=\"99604)</div>

It takes a lot of energy (including fossil fuels) to produce ethanol. So you wouldn't really get a high MPGoG, it just appears that way because you don't see the inputs required to produce the ethanol. It isn't even clear that ethanol production is a net energy gain. I tend to doubt that it is worthwhile, because the production process is not extremely efficient and the solar energy that is incorporated into the corn starch is not overwhelmingly large compared to other energy inputs, such as fertilizer. Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizers. In short... if we try to use ethanol, we're in deep *%@!/.

For a reference, here's a popular story describing one depressing (and hopefully pessimistic) analysis:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50329132436.htm

I've thought about this a lot, and I don't think we're likely to have sustainable energy before we run out of renewable resources. Unless there's a miracle breakthrough in fusion...

So enjoy your Prius! It's the most practical efficient vehicle out there.

-- David

 

Anytime you get an email that there is a new post, you will get that email from Danny. But you have probably figured that out.

As for batteries, I'm not as sure as you that they cannot provide the energy needs for tranportation in the future. Plus, to make the "portablity" comparison to gas and hydrogen, you need to include the gas tank and hydrogen storage tank as part of that comparison. Thus, it's "portability" factor improves.

Plus, how much energy needs do they really need to provide? If a battery can give the car upwards of 100 miles a day off the from plugging in at night, and another 100 miles from plugging in at work, that's more than anyone needs for daily use. Make that car a hybrid burning just about anything for fuel, and you've got the range for a trip.

Zenith has a battery that recharges in 60 seconds. If this pans out for cars, then people could still take trips and just recharge more often. The people that make one of the small electrics in Europe have a battery system that can be exchanged in 10 minutes. They think it can be automated and perform a total battery change in seconds. So if the Zenith quick charge doesn't work, this could solve the problem. then people could just change batteries as they drive coast to coast.

My point is, hydrogen seems MUCH further away than any of this.

The current Prius battery is 1/2 the size, 1/4 the cost, and has twice the storage as the battery in the first Prius. At this rate, there will be an affordable plug in hybrid in 2 years that goes 100 miles before the gas engine starts, and in 5 years, it'll go 250 miles before the gas engine starts.

This is why I think the hybrid-electric solution for transportation is decades ahead of hydrogen. But you won't see American big business embrace it because the business model for hydrogen is superior. NOT because hydrogen is superior, but the model to centralize profits is superior.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"99136)</div>

I see how the article was trying to get that across. Yet, I still believe my point is valid, but we can agree to disagree. It will be interesting to see how the energy bill comes out. I really hope all the pork gets taken care of, but not likely with how politics is played.

 

OBVIOUSLY !!!

Only a stored energy already existing, like fossil fuels, gives you something from "nothing". The goal is really to find a new "source", one that requires less energy to harness than others.

How come no one expects a home furnace to ever be 100% efficient. They simply purchase an "energy efficient" one that rates in the 90's, saying that's perfectly acceptable. But when it comes to the efficiency of producing a fuel, they actually expect it to deliver greater than 100% (a net gain)? That's quite unrealistic.

Only electricity itself, can come from "nothing" when a renewable source like solar or wind is used. But that is far from readily available. Our infrastructure currently requires a combustible fuel for the production of fuel. Obviously, that process will never be 100% efficient. So we have to settle for a "as close as possible" approach for now.

So basically, I dismiss any "100% comment" that isn't followed by a suggestion. What do you suggest?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a\";p=\"99859)</div>

What do I suggest? Modify our infrastructure... and do it now, while it's relatively easy, rather than later when fossil fuels are much more expensive and our economy takes a dive.

Apply a substantial additional tax (perhaps about 30%) to fuel sales in the US. The proceeds go toward funding renewable energy sources:

- building wind turbines
- building solar power stations, both via photovoltaics and simple reflectors heating water in pipes
- hydrothermal (similar to the natural energy laboratory near Kona, Hawaii)
- use methane or oil-producing algae (and *maybe* sugarcane in some parts of the world)
- more research into nuclear fusion (and let scientists run it, not politicians!)
- and yes, as a temporary measure, we will probably need more (and modern, safe) fission power plants

At the same time, promote energy efficiency by *temporarily* subsidizing things like hybrid vehicles, efficient lighting (compact fluorescents, or even better - LED lights). Houses could be built to be more energy efficient also - for example, houses in the Phoenix area almost invariably lack basements! The subsidies could be phased out over a few years once the more efficient technologies have gained a large market share and prices start to fall from economies of scale.

-- David