The Trucker
verizon.net> wrote> dlzc wrote
>> Sanny
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>> As electric cars will be cheaper than using oil for travel.
>>>> Not a chance, because of the batterys.
>>> It is difficult at the moment but in 4-5 years Solar energy
>>> will be 3 times cheaper than all other types of energy.
>> Only if all the coal and oil disappears, or if "carbon taxes" make them cost prohibitive.
> Your position seems to be that the costs of solar collection and transportation
> is more expensive than the costs of coal mining and coal transportation.
Nope, that electric cars wont ever be viable compared with liquid fueled ICE cars.
> IMHO that is horseshit in that the grid is a necessity in either case.
But the coal fired power station is much more economically viable than powering the grid using solar.
And there is no coal transportation involved if you have enough
of a clue to site the coal fired power station at the coal mine.
> The cost of converting solar to electricity then
transporting electrical power is very low indeed.
Wrong. Particularly if you want the power available 24/365.
> And as the source is totally free
Not when you count the capital cost of the equipment to collect it.
In spades if you need the power 24/356.
> then the efficiency of the storage is probably much less relevant.
Not necessarily to the capital cost involved tho.
> The acquisition and transportation of coal seems more expensive
> than the acquisition and transportation of solar based power.
Not if you have enough of a clue to site the coal fired power station at the coal mine.
> The double conversion of electrical power (for the sake of storage)
> seems daunting until we recognize that the source power is free.
Pity about the capital cost of the hardware to collect it.
> Did I say double? I meant quadruple. The power company has to store
> the power of the day so that the populous can charge up their cars at night.
Not when coal is used to generate the electricity.
> Maybe we all need to work nights and sleep days.
It would make a hell of a lot more sense to telecommute instead.
> During the day the cars all get charged up and the other home batteries too.
Pity thats peak demand time in summer due to air conditioning.
> Then the humans come out a play in the dark.
And you need all those lights to make that feasible and the sun aint shining either.
>>> And Electric Engine with 100-200 miles range on electric Charge has already been made.
>> But *not* carbon neutral. Manufacturing the batteries take a lot of power.
>>> You just need fuel cells and charge them in 5 minutes.
>> But *not* carbon neutral. Manufacturing the fuel cells take a lot of
>> power, and they get poisoned quite easily if the fuel and oxygen
>> sources are not pure.
>>> And you will never need an Oil Station.
>> Fuel cells will need a fuel station.
>>> Just Charge your car like we charge the Mobile Batteries from the plug.
>>> Good hopes for Solar Energy.
>> Too many hopes, I'm afraid. But then when there is so much
>> less solar than their needs to be... the push needs to be big.
> The wind and the solar are both free and everlasting.
So is nuclear.
> To not use them to replace oil that is fixed in supply is nothing less than stupid.
Wrong when nukes to that much better and can also provide the transport fuel too.
So you dont need to fart around with stupid batterys.
> The capitalization costs should be borne without regard to typical ROI.
Completely stupid to do that.
> The returns will come late as opposed to early.
They wont come at all compared with nukes.
> The cost of the new energy is actually the interest rate on the
> opportunity costs. IMHO we really have little else in which to invest.
Wrong again, most obviously with nukes.
> Our questions are really about that deployment.
Nope.
> In the longer term it makes more sense to keep the energy in the piggy
> bank and instead develop sustainable alternatives to the use of oil.
Dont need to develop anything with nukes, just do it.
> The price of mobility is going to increase,
Not necessarily, particularly if we have enough of a clue to use nukes
to generate electricity and use that to heat our houses and use natural
gas for mobility in gasoline engines. Thats already CHEAPER than gasoline.
> but that need not mean the price of alternatives to labor will increase;
Nope, because the vast bulk of that comes from electricity now.
> the price of mechanization that allows the current level of population.
Its got nothing to do with the level of population in modern
first and second world countrys, not one of which is even
self replacing on population now if you take out migration.
> We should not confuse the cost of supporting the fancy
> SUV and the monster macho ego trip truck with the cost of
> mechanization that allows the current population to flourish;
That stuff is part of the flourishing now.
Its moved WAY past mechanisation for a long time now.
> that allows the existence of a broad and prosperous middle class.
Those SUVs and monster macho ego trip trucks are part of the prosperity now.
> Here I speak of the movement of goods that is necessary
> to the economic division and specialization of land and labor.
Perfectly feasible to move those by electrified rail if we choose to.
> The western deserts and the deserts surrounding the
> Sea of Cortes are a marvelous example of proper land
> use in the provisioning of energy in the face of peak oil.
Nope, nuke power stations are.
> These large empty spaces and the offshore oil are
> the fountain from which American prosperity must flow.
Completely off with the fairys, as always.
> The alternative is fascist imperialism
You wouldnt know what fascism was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> as we steal oil from the middle east on the basis of our military might;
Odd, could have SWORN that the problem is the price we have to PAY for it.
> a forced extraction of real value through political contrivance centered on religion.
Completely off with the fairys, as always.
> And there is little difference here and what the AXIS did.
They didnt PAY for what they looted from conquered areas. Completely different.
> America is very fortunate to have the means to be independent of the middle east.
Everyone else is too, using nukes.
> The adjustment in life style is not that great.
In spades if we have enough of a clue to use nukes.
Just more utterly silly mindless raving.
