New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG

You don't think 300+ hp cars are for kicks and giggles ?

It sounds retarded to me. There simply isn't an infinite supply of energy. I was
taught that one ought to live within one's means ! You seem to think that's not
adequate.

Do you actually have some bizarre aversion to energy efficiency ?

What's wrong with it !?

Early examples weren't great but the technology has moved apace in 20 yrs. The
light I get from CFLs is the best quality I could imagine ( actually better than
from incandescents ).

Neither do I much to be honest but if you don't change your ways expect to be hit
in the pocket.

JFK died 44 yrs ago. Do you expect what made sense 44 yrs ago to be equally
relevant today ?

They're stuffed in that case !

Why again do you think demand has to continually increase ? This is utterly absurd.

Actually you are. You're saying things like I don't *want* to conserve energy
dismissing the idea almost out of hand. Let me tel you, I 'm not much impressed by
your 'wants'. Its an example of that me, me, me society that's so loathsome.

Bugger all actually.

So ? That's just another excuse to keep being inefficient ! Do you Americans have
no idea about a future where stuff changes ?

Efficiency may indeed ahve improved in those hings but its offset by higher use.

In any event there's nothing efficient about SUVs and personal trucks.

Infinitely ? You're joking. Anyway - it simply isn't going to happen so you'd
better look elsewhere.

You need neither. The best route to energy efficiency is *insulation* in homes.

Use modern technology and they can with reduced energy use too. Insulation is
hardly hi-tech even ! Yet it's the single most effective method to reduce bills.

Graham

 

Hell, it costs more then that to feed each of our military. Government
daily per diem is $40.00 while at schools or traveling.

 

And just how many of those do you see on the road?

No, I never even implied that. I stated that energy efficiency is not
the solution. While there may not be a infinite supply, there certainly
is plenty to go around if you process these sources.

Well I tried it once some years ago and hated it. Although there is a
new bulb out today that makes claim it doesn't give off that "office"
type of lighting. But your lights hardly use much electricity to begin
with. It's your televisions and appliances with motors that use the
bulk of your electricity.

Actually, yes I do, it's why I brought the quote up. In this country,
we constantly strive to make our lives easier and more convenient. We
are willing to work for it, spend money on it and sacrifice for it. In
the days of JFK, people had this very same goal.

Not at all. Going back some forty years or so ago, people used much
less energy because there was less items that required fuel. When the
children wanted entertainment, they played board games or went outside
to play baseball. When the adults wanted entertainment, they went to
the local movie theater. When it was hot, we sat on the front porch
with our other neighbors and had a giant bullshit session. We
communicated with a landline phone only.

Today is much different. We use electric shavers, depend on our
big-screen television for entertainment which requires electric cable
boxes, satellite boxes, VCR's, DVD players and recorders and your stereo
system. The children constantly play video games. We don't sit and
watch our hair dry after a shower, we blow dry our hair. We have
computers equipt with Printers, scanners and web cameras. We no longer
boil a hot dog or cook popcorn, we microwave these items now. We don't
have one room with a window Air Conditioner, we have Central Air that
cools the entire house, so we can't open a window to air out the place,
we use our Air Purifier for this job. We rarely use landline phones, we
just charge up our cordless phone or perhaps our cell phone to
communicate. And we don't have one phone in the home any longer, we
have several--one for each person in the home in some cases; the same
goes for televisions. We don't bring out our acoustic guitar to play a
song, we drag out our Marshall 100 watt amplifier with an electric
guitar to play.

So you see, it's not absurd that there is a increasing demand for
energy. You have a growing population coupled with a growing desire for
all these products that require energy. My home was built in 1920, and
when I moved in 20 years ago, there was one or two electrical outlets in
each room. Today, code is an electrical outlet every 6 feet. And
throughout this time, we have been figuring out ways to conserve our
fuel but again, it's offset by other factors.

I never dismissed conservation. What I did say is that I'm not going to
turn back the hands of time and live in less comfortable surroundings
for the sake of conserving fuel. If I can conserve fuel--great! I wish
I could run my entire house on two dollars worth of electricity per
month, nothing would be better. But I'm not going to walk around my
house with a coat on in the winter, nor will I sweat in front of a fan
in the summer all for the sake of conserving fuel.

What country has put as much money into technology and conservation as
the United States?

This is true. In some cases, such vehicles are needed, but 90% of the
time, it's just choice. I don't need a big truck to run around, I have
my 1999 Malibu that gets 29 MPG. It has front wheel drive so I never
get stuck in the snow. I wish there was a sell-off of these vehicles,
that would lower the price of gasoline.

You are correct, it's not going to happen--but not because we are
running out of fuel, it's because of the Environmentalists who halt or
retard the process of mining more fuel.

Without a doubt, and the same goes for good windows as well, but to be
honest, I don't know anybody who lives in a home without insulation.

 

The environmentalists had nothing to do with the closing of 180+
refineries.. (over half.. 324 down to ~146)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.petroleum/msg/969b45fe419fcd4a?hl=en&

Politicians are dummies..
They need to massively invest in renewables, pronto..

The US military subsidy for Oil is in the ~59$ per barrel range !!
[50% of DOD budget (400B$/yr) + Iraq operations(100B$/yr)]/divided
by national Oil consumption(~14Mbbl/day).

The environmental subsidy for Oil is in the ~590$ per barrel range !!
(I.E.. Costs to mitigate Oils contribution(30%) to GW mitigation and
losses ($500T) over next 50yrs based on current consumption profile.)

Both ethanol and bio diesel are marginal solutions.
(Biomass solar eff.. ~1%)

PV, wind, and hydro energy recharging pure EV's is by far, a
superior long term solution.

Hydrogen will probably be limited in it's applications..
(Not for vehicles, fuel cell cost is way to high, and eff way below
that of current battery tech. )

They've STILL got their collective heads STUCK IN THE GROUND !!!

===

Witness Washington's latest fiasco holding up the construction of new
windfarms!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0605310078may31,1,7557291.story
"FAA takes the wind out of wind farms"
"Critics blame politics after agency suspends projects in Midwest"

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...C459B91341F692718625718A000B4427?OpenDocument
"Do wind farms affect radar?"

Oh, let's not forget that most of those projects are WELL BEYOND the
radio horizon (~40 miles) for structures of that height. (Zero effect
on radar.)

 

Whatever energy is to be got out of *any* crop - corn, sugar beets, or
whatever - *is* solar energy. I guess the energy loss is in converting
it into a conveniently used form, and the key would be in losing less
than what's gotten out. So in that light, "research efforts into solar"
could be in how to efficiently grow and extract and utilize energy from
plants.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

And styrofoam is made from...

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

This is a ridiculous statement. Elsewhere in your "analysis," you
state that demand for energy is always going to rise regardless of
conservation efforts. It's obvious that incessantly rising consumption
of limited supplies eventually consumes the entire supply.

I guess you just mean that it won't run out while you're around, and
you're fine with passing the problem on to your kids, or their kids, so
you can be comfy.

No, not really. Conservatives say "I gotta get mine, screw everyone
else."

Carlos

 

How is efficiency in that case defined? It's an honest question. Is it
that only 1% of the sun's energy that hits a plant gets stored in the
plant? If that's the case, then so what? - we don't pay for producing
the sun's energy.

Or perhaps you're defining "efficiency" some other way in that instance.
Without explaining what is meant by "efficiency" in your statement,
the statement is meaningless. And I'm always skeptical of statements
that use ambiguous or undefined terms to make a point. Help me out here.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

LOL! I'd like to see the calculation on that. That's funny - I don't
care who you are. Why not say it's $1000 a barrel - hell - why not say
it's $2M a barrel. All artificial B.S.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

So you are saying that the new "cleaner" blends of gasoline had nothing
to do with the closing of some of these refineries? That the Democrat
led Congress back in the early 80s played no part in these closings?

But they are joining in the party and that spells trouble for our energy
future.

 

The same thing everything else is made from :{

 

carlos wrote:

Oh man!! You found us out. The gigg is up.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

As we seek different energy sources, we need something in the meantime
to hold us over until we get to that point. I don't think that in 100
years from today, many will be using oil products even if it's
available. Everybody wants a overnight solution to the fuel problem but
it simply isn't there and choking the supply isn't a solution.

As in the past, we will find ways to stretch our fuel and we will keep
experimenting with different sources, but that won't help us in the near
future. What is needed now is new supplies of fuel while we continue
looking for cost-effective alternatives.

 

You can do it yourself.. It's not all that hard..

500T$ over 50 years == 10 T$ year in losses and mitigation costs.

P.S. We're going to have to write off all of the coastal
infrastructure and properties, good chance we will have to write off
the coastal plains as well, displacing 1/4 to 1/2 of the US's
population. We've spent several hundred B$ on Katrina and still not
factored in ALL the losses. Greenland is melting A LOT FASTER than the
most dire predictions. Many more surprises are awaiting us.. (tipping
points??)

10T$/year * 30%(oil contribution) == 3T$ per year.

3T$ / 14mbbl per day / 365 days per year == 587$ per barrel in
environmental damage and mitigation costs.


=======

This estimate maybe a gross underestimation, if we transition past a
tipping point, humanity may be faced with ELE, similar to the
Permian-Triassic catastrophe (247 million years ago) with average year
round temps in the low 100's for thousands of years.. + (>4% CO2
levels, fatal to mammals).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190454,00.html"Global Warming
Caused Mass Extinctions 247 Million Years Ago"

Note: Photosynthesis production of ATP ceases once ambient temperature
exceeds 104F.

Soo... what price do you put on Mankind's survival??

 

It is more like .05%. It isn't about the 'free' sun, it is about all the
other infrastructure to support it. This is why corn to ethanol EROEI
hovers around one.

Land required to produce a _net_ amount of energy. EROEI included.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

What's needed is just a little good old fashioned common sense.

Good gosh, if you (one of us) know the end of our job is in sight,
do we continue spending and frivolously wasting what resources
we do have, because when it's gone we might just maybe - maybe - find
another?

Take care.

Ken

 

This 'the government caused our refinery crunch' is getting old. Best
cite the legislation that backs the claim. So far as I know the industry
consolidated their capacity because it was profitable.

'They' are no paying attention and it is not a partisan phenomena. We
are already in trouble because of the lead time required to fix this.

< snip windfarm tangent >

The present challenge is about liquid fuels and natural gas. All our
present wind amounts to the output of just one nuclear plant. We have
coal. Arguing the politics and efficacy of wind distracts from the issue
of domestic liquid fuel cost and the effect it will have on our economy.

But hell, we have already run the dollar so far into the realm of
supernatural value that domestic liquid fuel cost is now the straw...

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

What 'past' did you have in mind? The seventies when the Bretton Woods
system was retired. A time that finally lead to Volker's need to shake
confidence back into the dollar. How will Bernanke do it this time around?

http://www.neometropolis.com/bernanke-helicopter.jpg

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

EROEI - where does the word "solar" come into play in that?

Hmmm - I'm still confused - so the efficiency calculations are using
units of land to units of energy, or units of energy to units of energy?
What are the engineering units of land and of energy that calculate
out to 1% or 0.05% or whatever the number is that someone claims.
Without these clarifications, it looks like a bunch of handwaving (i.e.,
people pulling numbers out of their proverbial arse). Also, maybe I'm
missing something, but I don't see applying the term "solar efficiency"
to processing costs (in whatever units one chooses to use).

I guess what I'm asking is a forumula that results in some percent
number with units used in the calculation shown. So far, saying "units
of land to produce a net amount of energy" doesn't give a calculated
number, i.e., without knowing the units (acres, square yards, what?).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

It seems to be your requirement, you tell me. A practical source of
liquid fuels is about a system as a whole. In AZ the sun delivers
6kwh/day/meter^2 but that means nothing until I look at the net output
attainable.

I really have no idea what you are after. It is simply that cropland is
a finite resource so it is appropriate to use the metric I posted. If
you are after touchy feely numbers, I'll post this again.

**
plant, Switchgrass, for instance, (according to the USDA) will produce
500 gallons/acre of ethanol...

I have, many times.

suitable to grow switchgrass. That's 64 *million* acres.

mash can still be used as stock feed), thats 16 *billion* gallons of
ethanol.

So your first claim is that we can bring 32million acres of new cropland
on line. What time frame? But lets see what that gets you...

First, you assume an infinite EROEI, call it a generous two, That's 8
billion yield. 77kbtu/gallon so one half a quad.

how much gas is in American oil fields.

You tried to pull this phony math off six weeks ago. Here is the reality:

http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

Yep, we demanded more than 25 quad for transportation in 2002. I'll
repost what you never addressed:

**
That is the gross yield. What is the EROEI? But I'll use your number.

500/42 one for one is 12 barrels/acre/year. You can pretty much get a
barrel of fuel from a barrel of oil.

Heating value, Ethyl alcohol to gasoline, 11,600/20,500 so call it 7
barrels/acre/year. (Notice I'm rounding in your favor.)

5E6 * 365 / 7 is 260 million acres a year. That is the size of all the
U.S. grains, cotton, and soybeans. More than three times the size of our
present corn acreage. And we have not accounted for EROEI.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/wisner/WisAug04.htm

Another way to look at it, corn:
Ok, call it 7 billion gallons/year.
(Nation wide planed and existing bio refineries)

We have currently 80 million acres dedicated to corn cultivation.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/wisner/WisAug04.htm

This season we yielded 140 bushels per acre
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/st...

numbers vary from 2.5 to 3 gallons per bushel but I'll use 3. So if all
the corn grown were converted to ethanol that would be 33 billion
gallons. So 20% of that corn would go into ethanol.

Now, how does this compare to our liquid demand? 7 billion gallons of
ethanol is half a quad of energy. (77000btu/gallon). We currently demand
39 quad of liquid inputs.
http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

So that means 1/80 would be supplied by the gross output of corn. But we
still have not accounted for eroei.
http://www.energybulletin.net/14849.html

Looks like the consensus puts it at 1.3. Not a pretty picture for corn.

*** And another, Brazil:

Brazil produces .15mb/d equivalent heat in ethanol.

It isn't an opinion. It is what the numbers say. If the disparity
between demand and production grows at just 3mb/d/year that is twenty
current Brazils of _gross_ output a year. Even if an EROEI of two is
assumed now you are up to forty, (40), Brazils a year. EROEI of corn is
1.3 by consensus so 2 may be quite a leap.
http://www.energybulletin.net/14849.html

**

So, before this goes any farther, account for the EROEI of switchgrass.
And if the processing is anything like ethanol, you are looking at
$60billion/mb/d just for the distilleries. What about the infrastructure
to groom, fertilize and harvest this switchgrass? Remember that gross
yield requires 50 million acres/mb/d.

Yea, you won't address the numbers.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney