You are proposing that the energy currently derived from fossil fuels be replaced by energy delivered via electricity. How is this extra electricity to be generated - what is the energy source?
You are proposing that the energy currently derived from fossil fuels be replaced by energy delivered via electricity. How is this extra electricity to be generated - what is the energy source?
So where are all the electric cars?
Because we're talking about massively increasing our use of electricity.
You're confusing transmission infrastructure with distribution infrastructure.
I'm not sure what the phrase "more powerful" means in this context.
HereticHulk
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 714
I was referring to getting our vehicles off of fossil fuels to the greatest extent possible. Peak Oil is not an energy problem, it's a liquid fuels problem.
Here is one, with more on the way in the coming years.
Thing is the oil price didn't get high enough until recently to justify making them.
Existing electrical lines are not that hard to tap or upgrade.
You know what amazes me? We were able to build a vast freeway network 60 years ago, but today people keep saying we can't upgrade our electrical grid, which is considerably easier and less expensive.
Explain the process please.
Very well then, so you're saying we can't do this?
Means vastly more energy dense. 1 kilogram of Uranium has the energy equivalence of 1000 tons of coal. Now that is power.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Part of the reason that electric vehicles failed to achieve commercial success in the past is the same reason that oil prices were low: one was heavily subsidized by government and one was not. (The dismantling of much of our rail infrastructure was also part of that mix).
Is it? Are you sure it doesn't actually cost about twice as much to build a mile of high-voltage transmission line as it does to build a mile of highway?
Dude. I specifically said that I am NOT saying that:
I can understand why you might not want to take the time to slog through the entire thread, but would it be too much to ask that you at least read carefully the posts that have been made since you joined the discussion? If you were to review the whole thread you might see that I can be a little touchy about having words put in my mouth. (While we're at it, be a little careful with the quote feature too; you used it to quote JJ above, but then switched to unattributed quotes by me, and that can create confusion).
What I am saying is that the undertaking we're considering here is massive, and the costs will be massive, and the current investment interest is nowhere near strong enough to support it, and the political will to support it through government subsidy isn't there either. We can do it, and we must do it, and the problem I see is that it doesn't look like we are doing it (aside from some token gestures pointed more or less in the general direction).
Until we start putting nuke plants under the hoods of our cars, I don't see how that helps.
Are cars really so essential?
Belz...
Fiend God
Why, faith of course.
Apparently so, considering the ease with which it is accepted that as soon as we begin talking about a transportation infrastructure powered by electricity it may be assumed that we're talking about "electric cars".
I mean, how are we defining "essential" here? Is air conditioning essential? Stadium lights? Disneyland? The transition to alternative energies will come at an enormous cost, but then so would returning three hundred million plus people to rural village lifestyles supported by subsistence farming. The buildings are all in the wrong places.
Quick answer: Yes.
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for Rule 12.
Consider where you live, and where you work. The average American commute distance is 16 miles. (one-way distance, figures from 2005), which is impractical by any non-mechanical means. There is simply not enough railway infrastructure to take up the slack (there are more than ten times as many paved road miles as railroad miles). Even converting most commuters to take a bus would require massive infrastructure investments -- and that would still probably involve fossil-fuel-driven vehicles.
In the long run, we could probably restructure our lives (and our zoning systems) to have something other than the miles and miles of bedroom communities surrounding a commercial core, but it took something like fifty years of urban planning to get to where we are, and it's likely to take another fifty to get to someplace else.
So for the next fifty years, cars are pretty much a necessity, yes.
Last edited by a moderator:
However there is probably scope for a significant reduction in car usage. I only have data for London, which might be unlike the US, but even so the figures shocked me
The median distance for car journeys in London is 2-miles. 80% of car journeys are under 6-miles.
According to the graph of this book (page 15 google books link here) about 30% of car journeys are under 1-mile.
Over a couple of miles, I'd have thought that in good weather, a healthy individual would have a shorter journey time on a bicycle than a car (if you add in the time to park and walk from the car).
If cycling could be made less unattractive, it could make a significant difference to the number of cars on the road in densely populated cities. (Hey - for distances under a mile, walking is not onerous).
OT:
Then there are the other benefits. I don't have time (or inclination) to go to a gym, so I use my commute instead to keep me with a basline level of fitness.
My 12.5-mile each way commute is longer than the UK's "average" distance of 8.7 miles and it does take a bit longer than driving would, but is reliable. About once a quarter, our road has bad traffic, and a car would be delayed by about an hour. I get a delay of maybe 10-minutes. I also look at it as my guaranteed daily fix of physical activity, which I had begun to miss in other commuting schemes.
I enjoy my commute and sometimes extend it on particularly fine days. In other words, some of that time is reclaimed as "leisure".
Last edited by a moderator:
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
The numbers will be different in the US. In some US cities it’s difficult to even buy groceries without traveling several miles of the freeway and “a short distance from work” means 20 miles on a freeway.
Bad urban planning is the single biggest single obstacle the US faces in reducing its energy consumption. Far to much of the country is based entirely on automobile traffic, and IMO it’s going to be a significant competitive disadvantage over the coming decades.
I cycle a little over 11 Km (~7 miles) to work in a little under 25 min on a typical day. By car it takes me 20-25 min depending on traffic.
Batteries to power local personal transport is one thing, but for the life of me I can't picture batteries that will power a combine-harvester churning away all day over rough ground in the extreme distance. Nor massive quarrying machinery, nor chainsaws way up in the hills, nor heavy deliveries to any remote spot (Ice-road truckers, anybody?)
If our future way of life is not to be utterly transformed then there will remain a requirement for fluid fuel of some kind.
If our future way of life is not to be utterly transformed then there will remain a requirement for fluid fuel of some kind.
That's why I provided the short and simple "yes" answer for you.
If you want to know why the answer is and remains "yes," you'll need, I'm afraid, to actually read something. If you're wrong, you're ignorant. If you're wrong and afraid to learn why, you're simply stupid.
Considerably unlike the US -- but also considerably unlike the rest of the UK.
I'd believe that. Six miles in London will get you more or less anywhere you want to be; in Banbury, Oxon, it won't even get you to the county offices. And if you're the sort of person who doesn't like the city life (i.e. you want to live in the suburbs, as much of the population seems to), but need to work where the jobs are, you'll need to commute.
A long way.
Possibly, but for much of the world, "making cycling less unattractive" would require major investments in infrastructure and even in weather control. London's actually a very nice place for cycling; the weather never gets that bad (summers are typically 25 or below, and it rarely drops below freezing in the winter). There is, of course, the everpresent rain, but you can deal with that with a light coat or an anorak or something.
Compare that with the 30cm or more of snow that even Washington DC gets on a regular basis (and DC is considered a "southern" town, and has the 35 degree summers to prove it). Further south, you can't cycle in the summer because you will die of heat stroke -- in many cases literally. Further north,... well, let's just say that its hard to pedal when you're buried up to your axles in snow.
For the major cities, there's usually a very expensive and underbuilt public transportation system. I don't need to tell a Londoner about how bad the Tube doesn't work --- but the London Tube is among the best in the world. Any city in the States would envy the Tube system,.... but where would the money come from to build it? (Even London couldn't afford it if it had to start from scratch.)
Of course, much of that is urban planning rather than pure geography.
Cities in the United States tend to have huge areas zoned "commercial" and even huger areas zoned "residential,".... and you can't put grocery stores in residential zones. Even if you could, you couldn't get enough land to build the kind of superstores you need to offer cheap prices.
You see this even in the UK; in towns small enough that getting to the outskirts is practical -- Oxford comes to mind -- the major shopping is all near the "ring road," surrounded by huge American-style parking lots so that the locals can come and park their tiny little cars, but fill them with a week's groceries that are much cheaper than you get at the greengrocer down the lane.
In the United States, you're not allowed (legally) to have a greengrocer down the lane. But even in Oxford, you probably won't have one in a few years, because he can't compete with the Tesco's where lettuce is 5p cheaper and you can get a bottle of vinegar to go with it.
I'm not sure that it's "bad," as much as "overtaken by events." The cities were planned around the idea that gasoline was commonplace and cheap, so you could spend more on gas, but less on everything else. If an extra dime of gas could save me two bucks a week on groceries, that's a good trade.
Bear in mind that this urban planning didn't happen in a vacuum. People didn't move to Santa Seesyou, California and then find out in stunned horror that there's no commercial space in that town at all. In fact, many of them moved to Santa Seesyou because there was no commercial district, which made it a nice, quiet, safe, place to raise the kids.
I agree. There will always be some uses of oil that would be very difficult to replace with anything else, though natural gas is an adequate substitute in many applications for which battery power just doesn't quite cut it, as well as being a much easier conversion to make (and the point of peak natural gas production really is so far in the future that we don't need to worry about it yet).
Fortunately, we should have little trouble meeting at least that requirement, considering that only about a fifth of the total energy consumed in the US goes to industry (direct energy use in both agriculture and mining combined probably represents only about 2 percent, and a good chunk of that comes from sources other than oil).
It has been said that just as the stone age did not end for lack of stone, the oil age will come to an end long before the world runs out of oil.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Lithium Air batteries potentially approach the energy/weight of gasoline so they should not be significantly harder to get into remote areas then gasoline is now. For some applications like farming where you need to refuel on the fly swapping batteries may not be an option.
I think this got question got buried.
To me the question is whether or not there will be sufficient innovation to make alternatives to oil practical without too drastic an effect on our way of life.
Given the amount of oil use in agriculture and food distribution, I would say that this could lead to rises in the real cost of food, and food shortages.
I know that you brought up the Simon-Ehrlich wager, which I think only demonstrated a bit better knowledge of medium-term commodity price volatility by the economist.
Why a ten-year timescale? I can see for the purposes of the bet, but surely it would be more instructive to look at these from the start point until the current time.
Or more to the point why not look at the inflation-adjusted price of oil if we are discussing oil usage?
To me the question is whether or not there will be sufficient innovation to make alternatives to oil practical without too drastic an effect on our way of life.
Given the amount of oil use in agriculture and food distribution, I would say that this could lead to rises in the real cost of food, and food shortages.
I know that you brought up the Simon-Ehrlich wager, which I think only demonstrated a bit better knowledge of medium-term commodity price volatility by the economist.
Why a ten-year timescale? I can see for the purposes of the bet, but surely it would be more instructive to look at these from the start point until the current time.
Or more to the point why not look at the inflation-adjusted price of oil if we are discussing oil usage?
It is both. It is also a money problem.
The bounty of oil as allowed us to indulge the insane delusion that perpetual growth is possible and healthy. We have structured out financial systems and economies accordingly.