Sales of the GM Volt.

[rwh11385]

I was refuting your assertion of 20bbl in "proved" reserves, and how the amount of "proved" reserves changes with exploration and improved drilling techniques.

And if you compare the price 10 years ago to now, and what it will be 10 more years form now, I'm not sure the alternatives will catch up quickly enough to offset what will likely be $225-250 a barrel oil, possibly even higher.

So more exploration now, could help make it an easier transition.

You refuted the proved reserves with a source that discredited such a concept by focusing on federal lands and waters' oil potential. Hence, you refuted with the exploration of federal oil potential reserves... and thus, my response.

What is wrong with $250 a barrel oil? Is there some moral obligation in your mind to fight against market forces? Is there any strategic advantage to hold onto a dwindling resource, compared to embracing the future? You complain about the payback period of a Volt, or gwb the wind turbines... but if oil and coal increase in price, they'll make perfect sense and we'll be rather glad to have them as options. And even more reason to be investing NOW since technology cannot respond instantly to demand to offset high fuel prices.

More renewable and alternative drivetrain research now will make it easier to transition away from fossil fuels later. (And ahead of the game compared to other nations and better positioned to stay a world power...)

Our military is already working hard to prepare for the future and be sustainable / efficient: http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...y_defense.html

Reducing oil dependence
The DOD set a goal of reducing petroleum use by 20 percent by 2015. DOD is currently on track to meet this goal, and has cut fleet-wide petroleum use by 6.6 percent since 2005.
The Air Force plans to cost-competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel by 2016 via an alternative fuel blend that is cleaner than conventional petroleum fuel.
The Department of Navy has set aggressive goals to decrease fossil fuel use by all vessels by 50 percent by 2020, and reduce petroleum use in nontactical vehicles by 50 percent by 2015.

Improving energy efficiency
DOD has a set a goal of reducing energy intensity by 30 percent by 2015. In 2010, the department cut energy use by 11.2 percent over 2003 levels—short of its interim 15 percent goal. Efforts must be expanded to meet the 2015 target.
Half of all Department of Navy installations by 2020 will be "net-zero" energy bases producing more energy than they consume. A key element of this effort began last year with the Navy’s advanced metering initiative, which when complete will have placed 27,000 smart meters on its installations worldwide. This will enable Navy facilities to reduce electricity use via better management.
The Army also has a net-zero energy installation goal to ensure that facilities are able to produce as much energy as they consume. To accomplish this goal, the Army implemented the highest building standard in the federal government. The Army is now piloting bases with "net-zero" energy use across the country. The Oregon Army National Guard volunteered to go net zero—on energy, waste, and water—across the state, as did Fort Bliss, Texas and Fort Carson, Colorado. The Army plans to add 25 more bases in each net zero category in FY 2014.

Deploying renewable electricity and increasing grid security
DOD set a goal of providing 26 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. It is currently using 11.3 percent renewable energy, and is on track to meet its 26 percent goal if these efforts continue, according to OMB.
Half the Navy's total energy consumption ashore will come from cleaner, alternative sources by 2020. A few examples of Navy renewable energy projects include 270 MW of geothermal power online in China Lake, California, 100 MW of solar power coming online this year, and plans for 26 MW of landfill gas power. The Navy has also planned to deploy 15 MW of wind and has enacted the nation's only grid-connected “wave buoy” generation plant off the Hawaiian coast.
The Army currently has 126 renewable energy projects in operation, and hopes to leverage $7 billion in private capital to increase large-scale renewable projects by 2020. For example, the Army is planning a 500 MW solar energy plant at Fort Irwin, California. It continues to drill test wells for a 30 MW geothermal power plant at Hawthorne Army Depot, Nevada, and has begun construction of a 1 MW solar system at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, which will supply about one-third of the base’s energy demand.

They know what is needed to remain competitive and cost-effective in the future. (And it's hard to ever wage war with a nation if they control oil and our military runs on oil.) Decentralized, spot-produced energy also reduces risk of someone attacking the antiquated electrical grid or other utilities since a "Net Zero Base" could sustain itself on its own.

[HarryPotter]

I don't see what would be so bad about getting more of our own oil. It would ease our transition to other types of energy in the future. There is oil in our lands and oceans. It's either one or the other in this thread, you either hate oil and suck winds dick or hate wind and suck oils dick.

Why not keep oil cheap for as long as possible? That thought seems to really irritate some people.

From our current administrations viewpoint the only way to move into the future is to jack oil way the fuck up to "increase" our progression into alternative energies. Steven Chu said it himself.

[Wiglaf]

eh, i see the point of not making it artificially high, but i also wish they would cut the crap and admit that the only reason we have people dying overseas is to provide us with artificially low prices.

also for domestic production there's a good bit of wanting to save it for when shit breaks loose we used everyone else's first. Which, if there were no other alternatives, is not a bad strategy. but does not justify war.

[gwb72tii]

I don't see what would be so bad about getting more of our own oil. It would ease our transition to other types of energy in the future. There is oil in our lands and oceans. It's either one or the other in this thread, you either hate oil and suck winds dick or hate wind and suck oils dick.

Why not keep oil cheap for as long as possible? That thought seems to really irritate some people.

From our current administrations viewpoint the only way to move into the future is to jack oil way the fuck up to "increase" our progression into alternative energies. Steven Chu said it himself.

its really quite amazing the admin's attitude towards fossil fuel
north dakota has, by some estimates, nearly twice as much recoverable crude as saudi arabia, close to 500 billion barrels

i'm also wondering just how the hell i'm supposed to hook up to a windmill when driving

[HarryPotter]

"We must get our gas prices to european levels" Steven Chu.

[u3b3rg33k]

ZF9

http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/

Saw a few at the local BMW Motorrad dealer.
Seems like a perfect commuter bike - Stupidly low operating cost, ultra simple maintenance, and capable of hopping on the highway and not getting you killed.

95% charge in 2 hours - and $1.00 a day (at worst) to operate. The idea of a dead silent car does not excite me, yet I love me a quiet motorcycle (love me a not quiet one, too).

It'd be unbelievably smooth running as well. No engine vibrations to numb you up - not that my 47mpg (actual commuting MPG!) R1100S has that problem either. My KZ was a bit buzzy.

[priapism]

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/22/v...-may-hit-2012/

[rwh11385]

i'm also wondering just how the hell i'm supposed to hook up to a windmill when driving

The same way you fill your gas tank when in motion... you don't.





Increasing lightness and energy density and lower cost = greater EV range. And fuel efficient generator and a gas tank to re-charge for extended range (either diesel, gas, or CNG)

[rwh11385]

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/22/v...-may-hit-2012/

WOW! That's great news. Amazing when people don't hate something because of politics and are proactive when dealing with high fuel prices.


Related to my previous post:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/29/envias-gm-backed-battery-delivers-huge-energy-density-lower-co/

Envia has unveiled a new cell that boasts a record-breaking energy density of 400Wh/kg (most currently offer between 100 and 150). It's estimated that when commercialized, this could bring the cost of a 300-mile range EV down to as little as $20,000. The performance gains come from a special manganese-rich cathode and silicon-carbon nano-composite anode combination. The battery maker is also partly owned by GM, which unsurprisingly means we're likely to see these very cells in its EVs in the future.

Looks like for now, GM partly owns the bleeding edge of battery tech.

http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/...ogy-on-a-dime/

That is why Envia’s progress is a relief for the industry, and also a potential success for the Obama administration. Obama’s ARPA-e program, created under the Recovery Act to provide small grants for high-risk/high-potential energy technologies, provided a $4 million grant to Envia in 2009, a critical time in the start-up’s history when venture capital was unavailable, according to Sujeet Kumar, Envia’s chief technical officer and co-founder.

Customers such as General Motors footed the roughly $6 million bill the start-up had last year for its small factories, and research and development expenses. GM, which is struggling to sell more of its Volt plug-in hybrid cars, also is an investor in Envia, and Jon Lauckner, who was just named GM’s chief technical officer, is a director on the start-up’s board.

The company last raised a $17 million round from General Motors’ venture unit, Japanese chemical companies Asahi Glass Co. and Asahi Kasel Corp., and venture investors Pangaea Ventures and Redpoint Ventures. Bay Partners was an earlier investor.

“We haven’t spent any of that,” said CEO Kapadia. With customers in need of significantly better technology, the company can leverage such demand into payments for development

[Morrison]

I think GWB is one step ahead of us all with his perpetual motion idea. Simply mount a windmill to the roof of your car and you can power the car as you drive. :jk: Angle the windmill right and gain downforce? Hmmm.


That is indeed great news about the new "energy dense" battery technology being developed.

I've always thought that what really needs to happen is where the entire battery pack gets swapped out at "filling stations". You'd need a way to drop the whole works out from the bottom of the car and they swap in a new one. You pay for the exchange service. This way, you are never left waiting for your own pack to recharge.

[Kershaw]

Why not keep oil cheap for as long as possible? That thought seems to really irritate some people.

because it's a very short sighted point of view.

and why are you hating on free market capitalism?

[rwh11385]

I think GWB is one step ahead of us all with his perpetual motion idea. Simply mount a windmill to the roof of your car and you can power the car as you drive. :jk: Angle the windmill right and gain downforce? Hmmm.


That is indeed great news about the new "energy dense" battery technology being developed.

I've always thought that what really needs to happen is where the entire battery pack gets swapped out at "filling stations". You'd need a way to drop the whole works out from the bottom of the car and they swap in a new one. You pay for the exchange service. This way, you are never left waiting for your own pack to recharge.

Actually, it's not perpetual motion... but you can have a wind-powered car travel faster than the wind... but that would require the wind though.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/downwind-faster-than-the-wind/

The right-wing says F you science... and science comes right back and responds similarly. (Don't bet against innovation, like EVs or batteries... especially with what we've seen with Moore's law and computing power, and established energy density and cost curves... it's foolish to simply judge EVs on today's capabilities)


And all of that swapping and business plan complication is quite unnecessary and more difficult than simply having an emergency reserve fuel tank (of yummy biofuel of whatever form - biogas, biodiesel, ethanol, something that hasn't been made yet) and a gas generator of whatever is most efficient. No worrying about capital investment, getting rid of your warrantied batteries, depending on an open swap station, the time involved, etc. Extended range EVs piggy back on the established infrastructure instead of making a new one (like problem with hydrogen).

[gwb72tii]

The right-wing says F you science....

FAIL

the right wing, or at least anyone with brains, want all forms of energy to stand on their own.
there is no shortage of oil, won't be for a long, long, long time.
there is no shortage of natural gas, and won't be long after everyone's lifetimes that happen to be on this forum.

in the meantime, because green is favored, i have my tax dollars getting spent on shit like solar and windmills, neither of which are economic without huge tax breaks and support.

the right doesn't say F you to science. the right says F you to uneconomic wet dreams the left thinks are cool.

me, i'd love to be off the grid, pure solar or something else
but not at the expense of my neighbor's money (tax dollars)

here's a real life example;
two friends in AZ, decide to install solar (at least its sunny in AZ) and have their energy bill go to zero
two 20X50' arrays will do the trick
cost? about $48,000
except the state and the feds give you the same in tax credits so its FREE!!! yipee, its FREE!!!! (sarcasm)
meanwhile, i was curious, what's your energy bill? average about $200/month
do some quick math.
hmmmmmm, 20 year payback to get to break even
well F me, what a great idea

[rwh11385]

FAIL

the right wing, or at least anyone with brains, want all forms of energy to stand on their own.
there is no shortage of oil, won't be for a long, long, long time.

You are pissy about green energies getting loans or grants that amount to a tiny fraction of what oil companies get each year? Can't they stand on THEIR own?

Y NO U LIKE FREE MARKET?


If you actually care to read, there's a lot of private investment and venture capital into green energies, and as mentioned numerous times above... innovation that is making it more and more economical.

But hey, ignorance is bliss. You can put your hands over your ears and only read opinion of what you want to read all you want, but that doesn't change facts.

[rwh11385]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/

What do these trends mean for the future? If the 7 percent decline in costs continues (and 2010 and 2011 both look likely to beat that number), then in 20 years the cost per watt of PV cells will be just over 50 cents.

Indications are that the projections above are actually too conservative. First Solar corporation has announced internal production costs (though not consumer prices) of 75 cents per watt, and expects to hit 50 cents per watt in production cost in 2016. If they hit their estimates, they’ll be beating the trend above by a considerable margin.

The cost of solar, in the average location in the U.S., will cross the current average retail electricity price of 12 cents per kilowatt hour in around 2020, or 9 years from now. In fact, given that retail electricity prices are currently rising by a few percent per year, prices will probably cross earlier, around 2018 for the country as a whole, and as early as 2015 for the sunniest parts of America.

10 years later, in 2030, solar electricity is likely to cost half what coal electricity does today.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/19/407196/polysilicon-prices-to-drop-in-2012-bringing-solar-pv-prices-to-70-cents-a-watt/

Polysilicon Prices To Drop in 2012, Bringing Solar PV Prices to 70 Cents a Watt

In 2011, the average selling price for crystalline silicon PV modules was cut in half — falling from $1.80 at the beginning of the year to $0.90 in December, according GTM Research.

Considering research has only recently ramped up to its current swing and we've made this much progress, it would be absolutely STUPID/BIASED to not see the bright future in solar. [pun, get it?] If you want EV batteries and solar panels to be economical, guess what?!? You're in luck, every year they make more and more progress. You only quoted the first part, where I say the right choose not to listen to science innovations, but judge simply on current technology.

The right-wing says F you science... and science comes right back and responds similarly. (Don't bet against innovation, like EVs or batteries... especially with what we've seen with Moore's law and computing power, and established energy density and cost curves... it's foolish to simply judge EVs on today's capabilities).

But hey, people probably doubted the computer's potential, the Wright brothers, the telephone's usefulness, etc. etc. you name it. And look where that doubt got them.