The Electric Car "Runs Out of Juice" With Consumers

Where are the tracks?

The CSX train that was referenced gets the high mileage in part because of the low friction tracks it runs on.

 

Well, we did it your way in the 2000's.

We started and bungled a war for oil in Iraq that was 100% financed with Chinese money from day one.

Where did that get us? An unstable middle east. We failed to get the oil, We were far more dependent on imports after the war than before.

Fracking gave us a very lucky break.

So, rather than borrow and waste more money to make the world safe for Exxon Mobil and Chevron, we borrowed and spent a relatively miniscule of money on alternative energy research and investment.

And we HAVE siginificantly lowered the cost of both solar and wind power. We've made progress, and we now get more power from places where it is inexhaustible and doesn't have to be pumped or dug out of the ground than ever before.

And you're sitting there reciting your code words and shouting that we should be going BACKWARDS!

 

So the war in Iraq is your GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card?

That's strange.

If the war in Iraq was a bad idea how does that justify lib stupidity in 2013?

You libs are odd people to say the least.

 

Nothing singnals a narrow mind like your response.

You challenged the poster to prove to you that a diesel hybrid was something practical that you could put in your driveway.

I did it for him, rather convincingly (if you had bothered to read the article, which I'm sure you didn't).

After all, facts are so inconvenient when one is busy denying progress.

 

You are rewriting history again.

I specifically asked him for a locomotive that fits in my garage and runs on tracks everywhere I want to go.

Because that is the only thing that approximates the CSX train that he held up as an example.

But even libs should realize that a locomotive is impractical as a personal transportation vehicle for the masses.

 

I suppose you don't really expect anyone to take you seriously. Or maybe you think childish semantic games are a substitute for wit!

 

What? Incoherent non sequiter.

 

Who cares how they are classified, and there is no reason why one can't engineer a smaller model.

 

You're irrational fear of "conservatives" is almost comical.

No it isn't. No where near actually.

I am an architect and have evaluated several buildings and worked on teams with energy engineers, and never have I seen a building that actually has a pay-back period for the PVs that is shorter than the expected panel life of the panel itself.

Source your information.

Or... logic and fact based on experience and data, rather than ideological wet dreams.

 

So we are all supposed to live in tents in the name of independence from oil?

How many solar panels will it take to power this?




We need to operate in reality when discussion our options for energy independence and renewable sources.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliaw...s-up-16m-acres-for-renewable-energy-projects/
http://inhabitat.com/us-military-slated-to-quadruple-renewable-energy-installations/
http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/Hawai...Military-Drives-Alternative-Energy-in-Hawaii/
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119715
The largest renewable energy project in U.S. military history is slated to begin soon at Fort Bliss, Texas, a big step toward the installation’s goal of generating all the energy it uses, Army Maj. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, the installation and 1st Armored Division commander, announced today.

The Army Corps of Engineers gave the official nod this week for El Paso Electric to start work on a 20-megawatt solar farm that will power all of the division headquarters and most of the eastern sector of the sprawling installation, Pittard told reporters at a news conference.

The partnership is the first between the military and a major local utility on a renewable energy project of this scale, he reported.

“This is the largest solar project at any installation to date in [the Defense Department]. We are very, very proud of that,” he said. “It is exciting to be leading the American military in renewable energy, [and] reducing our carbon footprint,” both goals of Fort Bliss’ environmental campaign plan.

The solar farm, to be completed in 2015, is just one part of the post’s sweeping plans to reduce its energy consumption and dependence on nonrenewable energy. Fort Bliss already hosts a 1.4-megawatt solar array, the Army’s second-largest, and has installed a 13.4-megawatt rooftop solar array on post housing. In addition, another 20-megawatt contract with El Paso Electric is in the works, as well as a plan with the city of El Paso to convert waste to energy, Pittard said.

This is the future, better get used to it.

 

I'll respond to all of your comments when I have time.

But I'll take the first one first.

I don't "fear" conservatives, and my comments are not irrrational.

Conservatives opposed and belittled Jimmy Carter's call for a national energy policy. Even so, we got energy standards for appliances, and the CAFE standards, which have been the most effective energy conservation legislation ever passed. Carter also got subsidies for wind and solar passed.

Ronald Reagan ended the subsidies, made a show of taking the solar panels off the white House roof, and LOWERED the CAFE standards.

Bush and Clinton did nothing.

Bush Jr started a war for oil, and passed an energy bill that gave new subsidies to big oil, stiffed that alterative energy industry, and exempted fracking from federal regulation.

Now conservatives are still belittling alternative energy, as they have been for forty years.

Solar City will put solar panels on your home and lease them to you for five years for about the cost of your electric bill, if you finance the entire thing. The rate of return goes in their pockets. This may not work for a commercial building, but it's working more and more for residential applications, and with improving technology, it's only a matter of time before it will for many commercial ones as well.

Denying that possiblility had been the conservative mantra since the late 1960's.

 

Thanks for post a real world article.

Lets evaluate with some quick math.

From another article:

BJ Tomlinson, Fort Bliss' renewable energy & sustainable engineering program manager, said it would roughly cost $120 million.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/texas...ar-farm-in-military-4411658.php#ixzz2QAGnMPGi​

​

120 million bucks just for the panels themselves.

How much does energy cost in El Paso?

Energy Charge - $0.06755 per kWh for the first 200 hours times the maximum measured demand​

They intend to use the panels for 26 years or 227,890 hours. Utilizing the full capability of the system, 20mW for the entire 26 year duration, results in 4,557,800 mWh (mega watt hours).

That converts to 4,557,800,000 kWh. Take that times the traditionally applied energy charge of $.07 equals $319,046,000 that would be spent (worst case) for traditional energy. Makes the solar panel seem feasible and financially feasible. Right?

Well, up until the point that you realize that the government isn't getting the energy from the panels for free. In true fashion, nobody says what the 26 year cost of the energy will be.

This same company is selling power at $.0579 per kWh.

http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairm...ic-inks-solar-deal-that-is-cheaper-than-coal/

That means over 26 years, the army is still going to pay $263,896,620 for power from these panels. Add that to the construction cost of $120,000,000 and you get a TOTAL cost of $383,896,620 which is $64,850,620 MORE than traditional energy.

GREAT!

Oh wait.

Panels even with proper care only last about 20 years until their power catching capabilities start dropping to a point that they become inefficient.

http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/life-expectancy-solar-PV-panels

Thats ok, we will just replace them for another $120,000,000.

Some of the oldest coal power plants in the US have been in operation for over 100 years.

Facts and economics don't like solar panel.

The future is the pursuit of ideological agendas rather than logical ones. Yes, I agree, that is the progressive agenda, and its friggen burying our country in stupidity.

 

Sorry to rain on your parade but the CSX train that your fellow lib was using as an example gets 400 miles to r the gallon.

Does the car you submitted as backup get that much mileage?

No.

So libs are just wandering around in a dream world as if it were reality when it's not.

 

What power plant has been running for 100 yrs, does that include no retrofitting either. You haven't come close to cost of maintenance with fossil fuels such as oil and coal.

As I said, get use to alternative energy, it is already here.

 

An either/or proposition is a logical fallacy.

If you want to claim the right to demand that others support their arguments, you'lll have to do better than cheap rhetorical gimmicks like this.

- - - Updated - - -

I see you're still working the same dodge by trying to change the parameters you set in order to legitmize yourself.

 

Another problem he has is that the article he cited on the degradation of performance of solar panels over 20 years does not say what he claims it says.

Here is what it's actual conclusion is:

 

Our RW friend is simply anti alternative energy, irrelevant of everything else.

 

Without reading the entire thread:

At some point in the fairly near future we will have a viable commercial Thorium Reactor. They will be small enough to power a car without batteries and powerful enough to run your home without any outside power coming in.

Someone just needs to convince the government that the expended fuel cannot be processed into weapons grade material.

 

"...a viable commercial Thorium Reactor..."

Taxcutter says:
It is still nuclear fission.

 

No one is anti alternative energy.

But we are anti government subsidies that libs want to give themselves because they would not buy alternative energy at fair market value.

I'm sure we will have more energy efficient transportation in the future but libs don;t seem to care if the idea is practical or not.

All they care about is advancing the alternative energy agenda at any cost.

 

"...a plan with the city of El Paso to convert waste to energy..."

Taxcutter says:
You mean like Indianapolis has done for decades? Good luck getting a permit.

- - - Updated - - -

"No one is anti alternative energy."

Taxcutter says:
Indeed not. But it has to work for the consumer. Nothing advanced recently works worth a hoot at the consumer level.

 

Energy subsidies are ubiquitous, even for the oil companies.

 

Maintenance to the tune of 126 million every 20 years? Go ahead and source that for me.

You can put all the smug (*)(*)(*)(*)ty little comments at the end of your posts you want, it doesn't make the agenda you support any more logical. Infact, it just makes the agenda look even more stupid.

"We can't debate that our agenda makes financial crap, but get used to it, because we believe in it".

LOL.

Really?

 

No, you're not paying attention: there is NO reason to use that type of drivetrain in a car! It is used in locomotives only because nothing else worked!