IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Chicken <-> egg
They won't build the infrastructure until there are cars to use it. There will have to be plug-ins first. Then plug-in/H-fuel cell hybrids. So you don't need the infrastructure, but you can use it where it exists.

If you can do a rapid charge, say 2 minutes or less, that will get you up to 50 miles, that will take care of > 90% of all urban transportation for plug-in-only.
--

Drew
New I think we'll have fewer cars and more vehicle choices.
It seems to me that the 1950s model of having every family have a car is slowly going to go away. It's not sustainable for the US, China and other areas with large populations. The Census Bureau projects the US population will be 392 M in 2050. We are presently estimated to have about 0.75 motor vehicles per person in the US, versus about 10 per k-person in China. http://en.wikipedia....hicles_per_capita

I think, just as we have a lot more computing devices than PCs now, we'll have a lot more types of transportation devices. For commuting < 10 miles, I think something like a big enclosed Segway will be viable. For shopping trips for groceries, something like a Smart ForTwo or even lighter but having more cargo space makes sense. For occasional longer trips, cabs, buses, and ZipCar makes sense.

Yes, we'll always need trucks and some people (e.g. salesmen) will always need cars. But we've got to think outside the box for personal transportation. We will never get off oil if we think that personal transportation has to be a metal box that weighs 4000 pounds and can travel 300+ miles at a time. Since oil's going away, something needs to be done...

Hydrogen, fuel cells, etc., will only work if the vehicle dramatically changes. IMHO.

"Add Lightness."

[edit: What's 3 orders of magnitude between friends?]

Cheers,
Scott.
Expand Edited by Another Scott June 9, 2009, 12:32:14 PM EDT
New natural gas
we have lots, little modification to current technology to run and is relatively inexpensive
New We use that for other things
Power generation, and as a raw material in lots of stuff, mostly fertilizer and pesticides. Burning it in cars would have the same type of unintended consequences as ethanol has had on food prices.
--

Drew
New take a look at supply charts
http://www.eia.doe.g...nal/reserves.html
New Pretend I don't know how to read that chart
And add in the fact that it talks about supplies, but doesn't break down usage. What are you trying to show me?
--

Drew
New maybe this one
http://www.eia.doe.g...ecss_diagram.html
27.8 of all energy sources is supplied to transportation via oil we would have to not quite double current gas extraction to replace gasoline completely provided the money is spent on delivery infrastructure. A tax structure for roads would need to be factored into the ng price to be collected at delivery points. Wouldnt be terribly cheaper than gas but would be incredibly cleaner on the atmosphere.
that is a huge benefit
thanx,
bill
New How are you doing the math?
The way I read it, petroleum makes up 96% of all transportation inputs, and natural gas 2%. To completely replace petroleum with ng, you'd have to increase by 48 times the amount of ng provided to transportation. And since 3% of current production is going there, you'd have to have 144% of current ng production just for transportation.

Add back the 97% of current production going to industrial, residential/commercial and electric, and you need 241% of current ng production to replace petroleum. Even assuming you could produce that much, and distribute it, and cars could be modified to run on it ... what would that do to the depletion curve?
--

Drew
New Re: How are you doing the math?
differently than yourself
petroleum makes up 39.8% of all energy sources 70%of which goes to transportation
39.8*.7=27.86 of all energy sources are provided by petroleum to the transportaton sector
now Natural gas supplies 23.6% of all energy extraction and delivery would need to be doubled+3% to replace oil in the transportation sector without affecting other usage. Now according to naturalgas.org there is a 75year domestic supply so slicing that in 1/2 because of increased usage is 35years plus Canada has huge supplies. Of course we could import from elsewhere or develop stuff locally that isnt in the current accessable reserves
does that help?
thanx,
bill
New A Technology Review article from 2002.
http://beta.technolo...com/energy/12732/

Known reserves of natural gas, which is composed mainly of the simple hydrocarbon methane, will last for about 50 years at today's consumption rate. Estimates of likely but as yet undiscovered gas resources extend that projection to about 200 years. But when the natural gas thought to lie buried deep under the ocean in methane hydrates is added in, the potential is mind-boggling. Hydrates, ice crystals that trap methane molecules, form below a depth of 300 meters as a result of methane-producing bacteria. Very little is known about how much gas is bottled up in these crystals or how to get it out, but best guesses are that the reserves could, even with natural-gas consumption rates doubling over the next several decades, last tens of thousands of years.


Using natural gas for transportation will drive up the cost of the conventional stuff. As usual, there are issues with methane clathrate, too... http://en.wikipedia....Methane_clathrate

Cheers,
Scott.
New Isn't deep-sea methane the stuff ...
... that could destabilize and come up in huge "bubbles"? Why yes it is: http://www.marum.de/...he_sea_floor.html
--

Drew
New It's still burning stuff that's been in the ground for eons.
I don't think natural gas is much of a long-term solution. While cleaner, it's still a process of burning stuff that's been in the ground for eons and increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Plus, recall that only a few years ago the price was rising rapidly, in no small part because of lack of pipeline capacity in the US. Natural gas has a low energy density, so you either need to compress it (meaning high pressure tanks are needed), or liquify it (adding additional costs and storage issues). It's great for trucks, but not so good for traditional cars.

I think natural gas will be increasingly used as a transitional fuel, but I hope we don't think that it'll let us keep our "Happy Motoring" (TM-Kunstler) mentality.

Cheers,
Scott.
New well what the eff else are you going to burn?
one needs oxygen and fuel to burn anything so unless you are into burning livestock and people it will be things that have been in the ground or under the water for eons,
sheesh :-)
New The carbon cycle and biofuels.
The elephant in the room for energy is the Carbon Cycle. Burning plants isn't a big deal in affecting the carbon cycle over the long term (at least to first order) because it gets recycled from the air into the Earth over a few hundred years. (Ideally, of course, the burnt plants would be replaced by new ones to eat up the CO2 generated in the burning process. That's what biofuels is all about.) The problem with fossil fuels is that the stuff was locked up a long time ago, so the carbon cycle gets out of whack. The biosphere can't compensate for the huge disruption caused by large, quick changes, so the climate changes.

http://earthobservat...carbon_cycle4.php

IOW, burning biological stuff can be carbon neutral to the atmosphere over the medium term. Burning very old stuff that was brought up from deep underground isn't.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks that 200 years from now, people won't be burning stuff to get around, anyway.)
New not hardly
the biosphere doesnt know the difference between a woodfire and burning gas and the plants you dont kill for fuel will still be sucking down carbon dioxide as opposed to releasing it.
New But there aren't enough of them . . .
. . to absorb the additional CO2 from fossil fuel. We need a whole lot more plants to handle the job and we're not getting them - just the opposite.

Of course, with a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and much higher temperatures we could get some massive plant blooms. Some scientists think the last big global warming was stopped by aquatic ferns in the lakes formed from melted icecap. Of course in northern US and Canada these very ferns are being ripped out because they interfere with recreational use of lakes and streams.

About the only positive thing we've got going is landfills, the largest volume being carbon in wood and paper.
New But ...
You can only burn plants as fast as you grow them. It eventually reaches an equilibrium. If you burn fossil fuels without sequestering an equal amount, you're causing a net release into the atmosphere.
--

Drew
New on that point you are correct, so when are you buying
a woodburning car?
http://thejadeddevel...-burning-car.html
New Nit: 10 per thousand in China
--

Drew
New Whoops. Thanks.
     TTAC: The 2010 Prius is the anti-car. - (Another Scott) - (25)
         rather drive a ford, based on reading about the two vehices -NT - (boxley)
         Here's another Yuppie-class $45K entry from China - (Ashton) - (23)
             Innovator's Dilemma and Disruptive Technology - (drook) - (22)
                 That's why Tesla will probably stay around for a long time. - (static)
                 It won't be battery powered, either. - (pwhysall) - (20)
                     Chicken <-> egg - (drook) - (19)
                         I think we'll have fewer cars and more vehicle choices. - (Another Scott) - (18)
                             natural gas - (boxley) - (15)
                                 We use that for other things - (drook) - (7)
                                     take a look at supply charts - (boxley) - (6)
                                         Pretend I don't know how to read that chart - (drook) - (5)
                                             maybe this one - (boxley) - (2)
                                                 How are you doing the math? - (drook) - (1)
                                                     Re: How are you doing the math? - (boxley)
                                             A Technology Review article from 2002. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                 Isn't deep-sea methane the stuff ... - (drook)
                                 It's still burning stuff that's been in the ground for eons. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                     well what the eff else are you going to burn? - (boxley) - (5)
                                         The carbon cycle and biofuels. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                             not hardly - (boxley) - (3)
                                                 But there aren't enough of them . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                 But ... - (drook) - (1)
                                                     on that point you are correct, so when are you buying - (boxley)
                             Nit: 10 per thousand in China -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                 Whoops. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)

?
80 ms