Friday, December 11, 2009

You seem to be confused...


JP said...

I find it ironic that these are the same people who are violently against Nuclear power as well. What ever will they do once the Rolling Blackouts become a la Iraq pre-Gulf War 2 (power for maybe two hours a day, already arrived at in that socialist paradise of Venezuela)?

NotClauswitz said...

Snarklology 101!!

Anonymous said...

Sorry but electric engines are way more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Im all for this subtitution of Oil because it removes the "Oil Weapon" from our enemies. Think for yourself instead of "i think this or that way because its the rightwing thing to do".

Fletch said...

Anon; efficient in what way? Hydrogen fuel cells are very efficient. So is cold fusion. The question is what can we handle at the moment? If we waved a wand and turned every internal combustion engine in America into an electric one, we would run out of electricity in minutes. Is that efficient?

Obviously you missed the point of this comic; America generates about 60% of its electricity from burning coal. We may do it in a way that the EPA deems "clean," but it's still burning coal. The reason for this is because it's easy and economical. America has a LOT of coal, and it's easy for us to mine and burn for electricity.

It's the same reason we burn fossil fuels; it was easy for us to obtain and burn. Now that it's not getting so easy, the price has gone up, but it's STILL cheaper than any alternative, because otherwise the free market would take over.

Which brings us back to "efficiency," which I believe you measure in carbon output from the engine (which is absolutely NOT the definition of efficiency, but hey, I'll indulge you). What is the carbon output the electric car needs to go 50 miles? How much electricity is needed to go that distance, and how much coal (because it IS coal) was burned to generate that electricity? Do you think it was less than the carbon output from a single gallon of gas?

Despite what alarmists try to tell you, the output of modern day cars is extremely clean. So much so that cars, driven by almost every adult in the US, barely impact our CO2 output. Heavy machinery accounts for most of it.

Even "perfect" technologies like fuel cells suffer from the same issue. They run off of hydrogen, and the only "source" we have for hydrogen at the moment is hydrolyzing water. We need to burn coal to give us electricity to give us the hydrogen to give us our "clean" vehicle. TANSTAAFL

By the way, there's no reason to objectify and minimize your opponent in argument. Unless you don't have answers. So, DO you have the facts regarding nuclear power? Or are you just saying no to nuclear because it's the leftwing thing to do?

JP said...

Another ignorant sort.

Drive your electric from Dallas to northern Michigan some time. . . tell me then about efficiency.
Second point, that you seem to miss, what you use for your electric power depends on how "efficient" your electric motor is, and while mechanically it is more efficient to operate, getting the power is the inefficient part. Coal? cheap, but the libs are BANANA on those. Nukes? well, better, but one does need to mine it, but a good bit of fuel comes from demilling warheads. But again, BANANA to the libs.
Solar? not efficient. Not cheap yet either, and not likely to be for some time.
Fuel Cells? not there yet, and Water Vapor is a bigger greenhouse agent than CO2 by a long chalk.
Nanotech has yet to reach the point where we can get power from the space/time itself. So all your ways to get power from an electric motor are still below the efficiency of an internal (and maybe the new external) combustion engine in STORING potential energy. A bit of research and I think we could be better off with a hybrid like a train, but at smaller scales, one is still better off running off the internal combustion, as opposed to loss in converting to electricity.

Ya know Anon, the reason they call us Rightwingers is simple.
We're Right as in Correct more of the time(well most of us are right most all the time, but some stray off a bit . . ie Newt and his AGW stupidity, or backing a "RINO" further left than Hillary Clinton).
I tend towards libertarianism myself, but damned if most of my notions there tend to fit the Right as well.

JP said...

forgot wind.
Forget wind unless you are doing it small scale and use it only as a secondary addition, not to be relied on. Anyone who tells you different, I want them to live on a life support with only wind for the energy. Watch how fast they demand a constant form then.
Besides, "Split Atoms, Not Birds".

Mike said...

JP: You mention Michigan, which brings up another weakness of the electric - cold climates. Cold weather drastically affects the capacity and staying-power (and lifespan as does extremely hot weather) of batteries. Where ICE-powered vehicles use waste heat to keep their occupants from freezing to death, electrics will need to divert power that would otherwise go to driving the wheels into doing that job resulting in less efficiency and even more reduced range.

One very interesting idea I saw that BMW came up with is a small steam turbine generator that gets the heat for the steam from the catalytic converters in the exhaust system. This was a brilliant idea in my opinion as a lot of energy in an ICE goes out the tailpipe as heat.

The concept and basic technology for electric cars has existed for over 100 years, yet internal combustion power has ruled the industry. Why? It wasn't big oil forcing us to drive these cars. Hell, gasoline was a waste product in the early days (which made it a very attractive power source). It's the fact that they're wildly impractical that keeps them from rising to the top of the industry.

There are only two ways that they'll ever replace the ICE - some huge technological breakthrough that makes them practical or because the government forces us to. One is the right reason, the other is a very wrong reason.

JP said...

Yeah, cold kills the range on batteries. Not to mention the lack of warmth you get. Old VWs sometimes had a gas fueled heater, but the mileage on the car dropped massively.
Cyclone Steam engines make a waste heat engine that is used for lots of odd things, even generation of power. one of those is stacked on their big steam engine for running accessories like AC and alternator leaving the big steam engine to simply move the vehicle, or whatever.

be interesting to see how much energy Anon's ultra efficient electric car would take to make a weeks worth of 100 mile trips above the Arctic Circle. just keeping to powerpack warm enough to work would take a good bit of juice.