[Cloud9...68]

Those of you who may follow the dicussions we've had on this board about non-968 related topics that cover the areas of the pros and cons of different alternative fuels, things that influence (or don't influence) the price of oil, energy policy in general, and prognostications as to the viability of electric cars in particular, may be wondering why I haven't responded to my friend Flash's latest posts on these subjects, seeing as I've been very active on these topics in the past. Well, despite the fact that I vehemently (but as always, respectfully, and in a spirit of healthy debate) disagree with some of Flash's most recent statements, I've decided to bite my tongue and refrain from responding.



Why? Because these discussions, as interesting as they may be to me (and I assume to Flash), end up ringing a bit hollow when they're simply a back-and-forth between two individuals. Apparently, these particular topics aren't of a great deal of interest to the vast majority of the members of this board (which I find a bit surprising, given the high level of intelligence I've always observed here), otherwise more people would chime in. I don't claim to know everything about energy and alternative fuels, and I know Flash would make the same statement (hey, something we can agree on <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ), so I feel the discussions would be a lot richer if more people brought their points of view to the table. But until I see some indication that this is going to happen, I'm going to focus my time on this board to the myriad other very interesting topics.



Actually the above is all a ruse - my real motivation for keeping out of these time-consuming discussions is to allow Flash to spend less time on the board, and more time creating the wonderful products he's graced us with in the past <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> (can't wait to get my heat shield).

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

funny, and very cool - this will hopefully be a good thread - perhaps it will even spur on some new idea that will solve the problems



thanks for starting this thread, and hopefully the discussions in this area will stay here, and not migrate to other threads about other things

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Duckman]

I love this stuff.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Winston968]

Okay, I'll chime in.



Electric cars: I think they can be a viable alternative for city commuting. At the moment, the overall benefit is negligible if the power source is a dirty coal-fired power station though.



Alternative fuels: Ethanol blends: At the moment, I think blends like E10 aren't a viable alternative. Here is Australia, the price is a few cents cheaper than regular unleaded. However, there was a recent comparison that showed that E10 cost more overall because fuel economy is worse than regular unleaded.



Diesel: From a cost perspective, there is a long payback period. Fuel economy is better, however, the fuel costs more, and the car often costs more to purchase. The driving characteristics of a diesel do have some appeal. Good low-down torque suits city driving.



Of all the alternatives on offer at the moment, my choice would be diesel. But that's mostly because of the driving characteristics.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

OK, thanks for the responses. I was afraid my post would come off as arrogant, so I'm glad nobody seems t have taken it that way. And I completely agee with Flash that topics like this should stay in this part of the forum. I know I've been guilty in the past of steering distantly related threads down the path of energy alternatives and the like, simply because the topic interests me so much. I'm not sure I yet have the energy to plunge into a full-scale mega-post at the moment. These are definitely interesting times we're living in, energy-wise, but I fear, much as with the financial challenges before us, that our so-called leaders often really don't know what they're talking about. Like I said, it will continue to be intersting.



Duckman, I'm glad this stuff interests you, and we look forward to seeing your take on things going foward. I have a finance-based question for you, since you did such a great job of explaining how the credit crisis came to be. I'll start a new thread on it asap.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

I have been watching the Honda FCX production with keen interest. I absolutely love the idea of hydrogen fuel cell cars and hope that we can obtain comparable horsepower to Gasoline with zero emissions. Honda's concept is creation of hydrogen with an "At Home unit" currently powered by Natural Gas. I would prefer to generate the hydrogen from clean resources like wind or solar. The BMX Hydrogen 7 project can create hydrogen for wind, solar and biomass. The benefit of the Honda system is that it also creates and energy and heat for the home.



To me, this is the best of all possible win/wins. Even with the current system, the house carbon footprint is reducced by 30% and the car is absolutely zero emission. I think this can only get better over time.



http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity...mance.aspx



http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uni...YpsTNlAXDAkk1+s=



Regards,



Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Anchorman]

Jay, the natural gas is not being used as the power for the Home Energy Station. It's the source of the hydrogen atoms (natural gas, or methane, being CH4). The source of hydrogen that's generally thought of as being "greener" is water - which, of course, is H2O, which doesn't result in any carbon to be dealt with. Natural gas reforming has been the source of hydrogen for use in chemical plant and refineries for decades - the equation (which would read much better if I could use subscripts) is CH4 + O2 = 2H2 + CO2. Thus, you get hydrogen (which can then be used as the fuel for the FCX) but you also get CO2 - which nobody seems to want. The claim is that "CO2 emissions for a household using the Home Energy Station are 30% lower than those for an average household using a gasoline-engine car and commercial electricity and heat."



I'm going to look a little more carefully at the FCX web site, but from a quick skim, the one area that's not discussed - and I'm not surprised - is economics. The technology, while also having room for improvement, is nothing particularly special. The economics, though, are likely a long ways from making sense. And, there are "little" things like hydrogen storage that don't appear in the cute diagram. I have a friend with a self-built system much like this - solar powered, but he gets his hydrogen from electrolysis of water. Everything "works" - but the equivalent of the "Home Energy Station" cost over $500,000 (I believe that was his cost after the receipt of various state and federal subsidies and credits).



I'm not being a naysayer - in fact, I am an alternative energy "guy". What I am saying, though, is that much like hybrids, there's a long way to go to meet the necessary reliability, life cycle costs, and overall economic "tolerability".



OK, Cloud, you opened the floodgates...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

Thanks for the clarification on the natural gas. I believe the system costs +/- $40k.



The car is only available in Southern California and is only on lease, $600/month and all maintenance is included (Guess they don't want you working with 5,000 psi Hydrogen in your garage).



Eventually, the economics will make sense. I would advocate $6 gas if they absolutely garanteed that every single extra dollar went to research and funding for Zero Emmission Vehicles. The politics already make sense...



Regards,



Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

gm has 100 cars out there right now as a test program

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Anchorman]

Jay, now you've opened up one of my other "soap box" themes - and that is that the USA needs a much - MUCH - higher federal fuel tax. The transfer of wealth that we've allowed, and continue to allow, to happen - with virtually no benefit to the nation - is pathetic. Meanwhile, we have "leadership" - such as Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, who says "...a gas tax or floor on oil prices was never going to happen because the politics are problematic..." Why isn't the politics of funding our enemies MORE problematic? Why isn't the politics of yielding control of our energy policy and future MORE problematic? This is NOT the kind of leadership we need.



OK, calm down, work the system, maybe something good can come out of a new administration that claims to want CHANGE!!!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Yes, Anchorman, it does look like I've opened the floodgates. This should be fun...



While I agree that on the surface, hydrogen appears to be a promising fuel (I was even a member of the American Hydrogen Association in the '80s), I agree with Anchorman that one has to consider the economics along with the technology. Taken as a whole, I would put hydrogen fuel cells in a distant last place among the different potential replacements (I hereby banish the word "alternative" from my posts, as it implies some degree of partity with the baseline, namely petroleum based fuels, and such a beast simply doesn't exist) for gasoline/diesel - the Detroit Lions of the energy world, if you will.



Hydrogen is so fraught with problems, I don't know where to begin. Electrolysis, which as Anchorman points out is arguably the most environmentally-friendly way to produce it, is incredibly energy-intensive, and therefore very expensive (darn economics again). Remember that hydrogen doesn't exist in its natural state anywhere on the planet - that alone should be a clue as to the trouble with it. Even after going to all the trouble and expense to produce it, all you end up with is a very diffuse gas, meaning it's difficult to transport, difficult to store, and even in compressed form, it has very low energy content. So piddly, that the Honda FCX Jay mentions, along with every other hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle I know of (like the Chevy SUV) is a hybrid. In other words, without the assistance of a parallel power source, a hydrogen fuel cell is just too wimpy to do the job. So now you have a huge battery pack, a monster compressed H2 storage tank, an electric motor, and the fuel cell stack to lug around, just to get from point A to point B. This all due to the fundamental characteristics of hydrogen, not something that advancements in technology will be able to overcome.



My favorite take on the hydrogen fuel cell car was given by the guys on my favorite radio show, Car Talk, with Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers. For all their feigned buffoonery, these guys as a pair of MIT educated engineers, so they actually do know their stuff. A couple of years ago, a guy called in, and said, "I've been hearing about these hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. When do you think I might be able to buy one?" To which one of the brothers replied, "How old are you?" The caller replied, "Thirty three" (I don't remember his exact age). "You ain't gonna make it. Maybe your childrens' childrens' chlidrens' children." Sums it up perfectly.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Duckman]

To Anchorman's point about taxes, I have an economics professor acquaintance who says we need higher gas taxes. Lots higher.



His point is purely economic and not a value judgement. He claims that "IF" we want to reduce the consumption of oil in favor of viable alternatives, the only way it will happen is through our wallets. If we and our government are serious about a shift to alternatives that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce pollution caused by the burning fossil fuels, gasoline has to cost a lot, lot more.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

Even though I hate to say it, I need to agree with a higher gas tax. When premium was over $4 a gallon here, I still needed to drive to work every Mon-Fri. Gas was expensive, but....! I even checked public transportation, for s***s and giggles, to see if I could get from my house (or from very near my house) to my work (or to very near my work). Long story short- no matter what I looked into, I was facing a 4-5 mile walk/taxi ride to get from the final destination of public transport to my office. To accommodate the walking in the Summer, I would have to leave my house by probably 4am and wouldn't get back until probably 8-9ish. The economics just wasn't there for me to reduce my gasoline consumption.



I could buy a more fuel efficient daily driver- but again, the economics just isn't there. My daily driver is not that old and a new, fuel efficient car's cost would outwiegh any fuel savings I would see for at least 5-7 years (which just so happens to be the general life of a daily driver). I anticipate that I would break even at the end of that time frame.



Ethanol? JOKE.



I thought about "telecommuting", but I know the boss won't buy it. Given our organization, it would be a viable solution to have some people in the office for some days, and the other in on the other day, but no dice.



Now to energy issues- I wholeheartedly believe in heavily investing in other sources of energy. We need to reduce our reliance on foreign bodies and I am more than willing to pay my fair share to make help make it happen. I am almost ready to call my energy company and switch my service to partial wind power. My monthly cost will go up, but I believe it will help foster the spread of wind energy which appears to be somewhat plentiful!! <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



And last but not least, to help in the meantime, I'm all for throwing up a few rigs!!!! (I'd even accept a wind turbine in the common space of my neighborhood- my backyard is too small for the base!)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Anchorman]

Stepping back a little, one of the underlying messages is that our energy challenges are large - in part, because we haven't done much about them in decades (read "ever"), and in part because we are such a tremendous energy consumer. I did some analysis of electricity and solar energy a little while ago. While this is a bit off the topic, it is illustrative of the challenge. The title of the "paper", which features Kermit, is "It's Not Easy Be(com)ing Green..." For the past couple of decades, the world's generation of solar electricity (also known as photovoltaics, or PV) has been growing at annual rates in the range of 25-50% - largely supported by subsidies, particularly in Europe and Japan. Over the same period, world electricity production has grown annually at 2-4%. Are we catching up? Not by a long shot - in 2005 (the most recent year with reliable statistics), PV's contribution to world electricity was 0.01% - one-tenth of one-tenth of one percent. In Germany, the "poster child" for PV development, total installed PV capacity is about 5% of total electricity generating capacity - but electricity produced is less than 0.5% - because, among other reasons, the sun isn't always shining (especially true in Germany, which is quite "north"). In the US, PV currently provides about 0.0004% of our electricity.



There are lots of reasons - and I could go into most. However, the largest one is that our energy use is an ELEPHANT - and efforts to develop alternatives that make a meaningful dent are necessarily going take time, and cost lots of money.



In that context, let's take a moment to look at a fuel tax. If we instituted a $0.50/gallon tax, that would generate about $60 billion per year. As Biotechee points out, price affects behavior - and does so probably more than any other factor. We saw that earlier this year, and we're seeing it now - prices are down, and consumption is up - even in a recession. If consumers knew, though, that fuel prices would be high, they'd change how and what they drive - and change it for the long term, which would only be for our individual and national benefit.



Now - would could be done with $60 billion? One school of thought is to send rebate checks to every individual in the US - making the fuel tax a fuel "untax". In this way, fuel consumption behavior is affected by the higher price, but the individual has not suffered any economic penalty because the money has been returned to him. He can then save it, or spend it, but the overall situation has nevertheless been improved.



Of course, politicians being what they are, it's most unlikely that all - or maybe even some - of the tax will be rebated. So, there could be alternative energy stimulus packages of a variety of sorts (I won't get into that area at this moment), ... and I have to stop to take care of some other things.



BTW - if anyone's really interested in some of this (particularly what's being done in PV), I have a PowerPoint PDF of the slides I used for a presentation at an energy conference last month that I'd be happy to send - just ask.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

I see I'm in the minority(!) here, but I don't agree with raising the gas tax. Firstly, I disagree with the premise that I think I sense here - that a petroleum-based economy is somehow a bad thing, and that by pouring tax dollars into the right research, it can be replaced with something "better." Let's think this one through. First, there's no getting around the fact that no other material or energy source suitable for automotive propulsion even comes close to matching petroleum-based fuel's combination of energy content, cost, ease of extraction and production, ease of transportation, ease of storage, relative safety, and widespread availability around the globe (not just in unstable places like the Middle East), etc. This is due to the fundamental nature of the fuel, and not something the technological breakthrough just around the corner is going to change. In other words, the term "alternative fuel" is a fantasy - it simply doesn't exist on a practical scale.



Second, even if some miracle replacement fuel could be discovered or concocted, why would anybody think the issues that exist with petroleum - the shady characters who control much of it, the greed, cartels, etc., wouldn't exist with the new fuel? The problem is not with the material, it's with human nature. If, for example, natural gas became the new oil, how long do you think it would take for the formation of "ONGEC," the Organization or Natural Gas Exporting Countries?



Third, and I know I'm championing a hopeless cause here, is this absurd notion of "energy independence." Maybe absurd is too strong a word, because I used to be a big believer in it as well, until I read "Gusher of Lies - The Dangerous Fallacy of Energy Independence," by Robert Bryce. I like to think I'm open-minded, but I didn't think anything could convince me energy independence wasn't a great thing, but this book did it. We're not "energy dependent" as much as we are "interdependent." Remember that we're not sending boatloads of money to evil governments of oil-producing states out of charity. We're getting in return a commodity that fuels our economic engine. And the idea that the money we send to placed like Saudi Arabia is going straight into the hands of our enemies (radical Islamic terrorists) is simply wrong. The vast majority of terrorist operations are funded by money from drugs, illegal weapons trade, and human trafficking. Think about it - Al Qaeda and their ilk despise everything the Middle Eastern governments stand for, and the feeling is mutual. It's in these countries’ best interest to keep the oil flowing, as the embargo of the '70s, and its culmination in $10.50/barrel oil demonstrated.



Finally, even if you reject out of hand everything I said above, consider the evidence. Sky-high fuel taxes aren't anything new. Europe and Japan have been on that path for decades. Has the massive influx of tax dollars created an alternative fuel utopia in these countries? Nope. All you see in Europe are tiny, fuel-efficient gasoline, and especially, diesel-powered vehicles. In my last several trips to Europe, I was even surprised to see how few hybrids there are. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a bad thing (and the public transportation projects these tax dollars have funded are certainly a positive), just trying to provide yet another piece of data proving that no matter how many tax dollars you suck out of motorists' pockets, "alternative fuels" don't magically appear on the scene. And this doesn't even address the inherent wastefulness, inefficiency, and borderline criminal misallocation of funds demonstrated by our wonderful elected officials. I present the social security trust fund as Exhibit A.



I'm afraid we've become so accustomed to the rapid-fire introduction of amazing new hardware and software products from the electronics industry, that we've conned ourselves into believing that if we just applied the same type of ingenuity, plus a few billion dollars, we could achieve the same thing in the field of energy. It's simply not so. Between the fundamental superiority of petroleum-based fuels I described in the first paragraph (gawd, am I going to need a table of contents...?), and the vast infrastructure in place, we simply can't turn our energy source around on a dime. Trust me on this, it ain't gonna happen, no matter how many people think it "should." Not with trillions of barrels of oil still left in the ground, anyway.



So what would I propose as an alternative (gack! - I used that word, though in a different context)? May the ghost of Milton Friedman slap me upside the head, but I can't think of a better solution than the continued use of reasonable fuel mileage standards, but with no exceptions for SUVs. This will spur the development of exciting technologies like improved diesels, and alcohol-boosted, small displacement forced induction gasoline engines. OK, and maybe even encourage the use of electric cars for commuter applications (more on that soon, I'm sure...). I strongly believe in conserving this nearly miraculous fuel we've been blessed with on this planet (I've been using public transportation myself to commute to work for the past five years, and would never go back to driving my own car), giving us as much time as possible to find a replacement that's the least objectionable among the choices. But I think it's about a hundred years premature to start trying to bring vehicles fueled with other chemicals to market, because without the perpetual influx of government subsidies, these fuels will be slaughtered in the marketplace by gasoline and diesel.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Anchorman]

From a quick read, Cloud, I think you've hit my point exactly. Our transportation system/logistics/fuel is not going to change overnight. IMHO, though, we should use that fuel more efficiently, and price is the way to make that happen. I think that's better than legislating types of vehicles, or engines, or mileage standards. Those are methods that require enforcement and punishment - price simply takes care of itself in the marketplace. And, BTW - when the price is high enough for long enough, "alternatives" will come to the fore because they'll make economic sense. However, as you point out and as I tried to, we're not going to see massive shifts for a long time. The elephant is simply too big - and the "alternatives" are too expensive.



Regarding independence - I'm personally less concerned with "independence" than I am with providing our enemies the funds needed to do ill to us. That has always struck me as fundamentally - well, stupid!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Anchorman,



This is what I love about this forum - we can agree to disagree. And I don't disagree that higher fuel taxes couldn't be put to good use, as for funding the public transportation this country so desperately needs, or to cutting consumption. I'm just highly skeptical that these taxes will bring about the conversion to alternative fuels, based on the arguments I made in my last post, and on the evidence that it hasn't happened in Europe or Japan, despite many decades of high fuel taxes.



But I see from your last post that perhaps you're emphasizing the reduced consumption that would come about from higher fuel taxes. I can't argue with that - it's simple economic fact. I just worry about the burden such taxes would put on our already fragile economy, especially on lower income people. I've read proposals to cut income taxes to offset the higher fuel taxes, or offer end-of-year rebates. But this strikes me as a bureacratic nightmare.



How about this: Etch a bar code into the windshield of every new vehicle, which records the combined EPA mileage of the vehicle. Have a reader at every gas pump. The driver would be required to read the code, and the fuel price would be adjusted by some factor, based on the vehicle's mileage. A Hummer's driver would have to pay, say, 2X the posted price, while the driver of a Honda Fit would pay, say, 70%. Have the factors eased in over time, giving drivers time to adjust. This would conserve fuel, while at least giving people who already own more economical cars the opportunity to not be hit in the pocketbook by the plan. Also, it would reduce the payback time for the purchase on an economical vehicle. I'm sure there are plenty of flaws with this plan, but at least it could provide one option. Hey, maybe 968 Forums can save the world!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.