With great fanfare, President O'Bama visited Holland, Michigan to celebrate the opening of the LG battery factory; a factory built to supply batteries for the Chevy Volt. The plant was built with federal tax dollars to support a vehicle funded by federal tax dollars made by a company owned by the government. "This is a symbol of where Michigan is going, this is a symbol of where
Holland is going, and this is a symbol of where America's going,"
President Barack Obama told a crowd at the groundbreaking.
What was the result? THE FACTORY HAS YET TO SHIP A SINGLE BATTERY! Workers have so little to do, they spend hours playing board games, cards, reading magazines or watching movies. All this on your tax dollars. Here is the WOOD-TV Article on the subject. http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle
Where is President O'Bama now? Where is his praise for "green jobs"? Or should I tell you that studies have shown that for every green job created, 3 are lost from the high cost of electricity.
What kind of "job" is this when it creates nothing of value? Is this what the insane left enviro-whackos call "sustainable"? I have a secret for you people: if it doesn't create something of competitive value, it is not sustainable.
What is the O'Bama Administration's response to this massive waste? "We are sending this to the Inspector General, Department of Energy, for
his review," said Ed Pound, spokesman for the board. The Inspector
General's Office would decide whether to open an investigation. Pound
refused further comment.
A review? Any fool could have told you that this was a waste before they broke ground. Why should there be "further comment" when the real goal was to BUY VOTES in an election year. Detroit and points east of US 127 can be taken for granted to vote O'Bama's way. But with economic devastation, a few thousand votes in solidly Republican West Michigan can turn the tide of the election toward O'Bama and the Democrats.
Folks! The government is spending a king's fortune just to make you feel good about yourself. It's "green". It's "new technology". It's "jobs". That's what they tell you, but none of this is sustainable because it isn't competitive and creates nothing of real value. For every Volt sold, 10,000 Chinese (and 7,500 Indians) bought their first conventionally fueled vehicle. That's because THEY are making things of competitive value while your government encourages us to make worthless batteries for worthless cars that cost too much and won't accommodate Michael Moore's fat-infested torso.
The big corporations don't have a problem because they didn't have to bear the risk. The people who built the plant have taken their money and run; the executives of those contracting firms now contemplate early retirement. LG has their O'bama bucks. They'll close the factory when there's a loss to write off to offset the immense profits they make on their own products.
And you? HA HA HA! You get to struggle to buy frozen peas at your local grocer because the O'Bama Administration is forcing electricity prices through the roof. You get to buy gasoline at $4 a gallon because the O'Bama Administration won't let us use our natural gas surplus to make methanol. It (methanol) can be blended with gasoline in any ratio with cheap ($100/car) off-the-shelf technology. Coal miners out of work. Petrochemical lobby happy. Electric cars in the junk yard. Saudi Arabia laughing all the way to the bank.
Thank you Mr. President! Thanks for hiring hundreds of workers who are now reading magazines, playing cards and watching videos. That's what you called "Hope and Change" 4 years ago, but we all knew what it really was: patronage worker creation - Chicago Style.
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Monday, October 22, 2012
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Trouble With Wind
Many of you will remember the original Star Trek episode, “The Trouble With Tribbles.” The Enterprise is transporting grain to a planet with the unlikely name of Sherman's Planet, which is in dispute between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. But Kirk et al discover their ship has been invaded by thousands of cute, furry, purring little critters called tribbles. They do no harm, except they eat voraciously and reproduce prodigiously. They're so cute that no one has the heart to do them any harm, but pretty soon, they've eaten all the grain and threaten to take over the ship. (Without going into plot details, Kirk and crew escape this predicament when Scotty, ever the resourceful engineer, beams the tribbles from the Enterprise onto a Klingon ship.)
Wind turbines are a little like tribbles. They're appealing, they can displace kilowatt-hours from carbon generators, and they seem to do no harm; but they consume prodigious amounts of money, and they're reproducing all over the countryside. Everybody seems to think they're wonderful, but are they going to contribute anything to our energy requirements? And, if they do, what are the downsides, if any?
Read more here...
Wind turbines are a little like tribbles. They're appealing, they can displace kilowatt-hours from carbon generators, and they seem to do no harm; but they consume prodigious amounts of money, and they're reproducing all over the countryside. Everybody seems to think they're wonderful, but are they going to contribute anything to our energy requirements? And, if they do, what are the downsides, if any?
Read more here...
I fully agree with George C. Loehr's basic thesis. In fact, I think he's too kind to the wind turbine proponents. I encourage you read it and take Mr. Loehr's warning to heart.
I'm a big fan of alternative energy, but wind turbines are NOT the way to go.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Silver Bullet to our Petroleum Crisis
I was reading a column by David Harris of the AJC the other day. While I praise the AJC for making energy a high priority, I find them too embracing of liberal orthodoxy. Like so many people, they've been distracted by all the talk of "greenhouse gases". So when David Harris made the comment: "There is no silver bullet", I had to disagree. There IS a "silver bullet". It is the Open Fuels Standard Act of 2009.
Dr. Robert Zubrin has laid this policy out in a book called "Energy Victory". I highly recommend you read it. However, if you can't read it, please take the time to watch these 4 videos of his Energy Victory presentation.
These videos can be found at the following address:
http://vimeo.com/tag:zubrin
Here's part 1 of 4
Dr. Robert Zubrin Energy Victory 1 of 4 from EcoBabble on Vimeo.
Dr. Robert Zubrin has laid this policy out in a book called "Energy Victory". I highly recommend you read it. However, if you can't read it, please take the time to watch these 4 videos of his Energy Victory presentation.
These videos can be found at the following address:
http://vimeo.com/tag:zubrin
Here's part 1 of 4
Dr. Robert Zubrin Energy Victory 1 of 4 from EcoBabble on Vimeo.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Have you ever noticed?
Have you ever noticed that individuals and factions generally partial to greater state control of economic life, have found the evidence for global warming to be quite compelling?
Just thought I'd ask again since a cap-and-trade bill is winding its way through Congress right now.
Just thought I'd ask again since a cap-and-trade bill is winding its way through Congress right now.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
About Global Warming
Let's get something straight!
The problem isn't global warming. The problem is people who say government can fix problems of global magnitude by taking more of your money and controlling the way you live.
The problem isn't global warming. The problem is people who say government can fix problems of global magnitude by taking more of your money and controlling the way you live.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Grain isn't a limited resource
Grain isn't a limited resource. We can grow tons more. Right now, the government pays farmers NOT to plant crops. But wait! There's more!
Most corn grown in America is feed grain for cattle. In the ethanol distilling process, only the starch is used. All the protein fiber and oil is left over for use as cattle feed.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit ethanol production to corn. There are other sources of ethanol including sugar cane (Brazil is running their cars on sugar-cane based ethanol) and other sugar-bearing crops. Plus, there's cellulosic ethanol, the next coming technology.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit our automotive fuels to ethanol. We can run our cars on METHANOL which can be made from darn near anything including coal, waste wood, waste paper, and even garbage.
Diesel powered vehicles can be run from dimethyl ether, another alcohol derivative.
In the third world where economies are agrarian in nature, growing plants for automotive fuel holds the potential for economic growth that these countries so desperately need. Why let the poor countries get raped by OPEC when we can have THEM make our automotive fuels.
Yet if you read my post, you'll note that we don't have to do anything to MAKE ethanol. We merely have to make our vehicles CAPABLE of running on alcohol fuels. By doing that, we can place a cap on the price of petroleum that will limit OPEC's ability to control prices.
We can't lose if we have motor vehicles capable of running on biofuels. The possibilities are endless. We can even derive bio-fuels from algae fed from CO2 emissions from power plants that we are currently throwing away. Even the tree-huggers will like that one!
Most corn grown in America is feed grain for cattle. In the ethanol distilling process, only the starch is used. All the protein fiber and oil is left over for use as cattle feed.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit ethanol production to corn. There are other sources of ethanol including sugar cane (Brazil is running their cars on sugar-cane based ethanol) and other sugar-bearing crops. Plus, there's cellulosic ethanol, the next coming technology.
But wait! There's more! There's no need to limit our automotive fuels to ethanol. We can run our cars on METHANOL which can be made from darn near anything including coal, waste wood, waste paper, and even garbage.
Diesel powered vehicles can be run from dimethyl ether, another alcohol derivative.
In the third world where economies are agrarian in nature, growing plants for automotive fuel holds the potential for economic growth that these countries so desperately need. Why let the poor countries get raped by OPEC when we can have THEM make our automotive fuels.
Yet if you read my post, you'll note that we don't have to do anything to MAKE ethanol. We merely have to make our vehicles CAPABLE of running on alcohol fuels. By doing that, we can place a cap on the price of petroleum that will limit OPEC's ability to control prices.
We can't lose if we have motor vehicles capable of running on biofuels. The possibilities are endless. We can even derive bio-fuels from algae fed from CO2 emissions from power plants that we are currently throwing away. Even the tree-huggers will like that one!
Flex Fuel Vehicle Mandate is a MUST
With petroleum and gasoline prices falling, there is still plenty of room for ethanol in America's future for transportation fuels. Naturally, ethanol is losing its competitive edge as the price of petroleum falls with the world economy slipping into a major recession.
But all is not lost. You see, NOW is the time to bring about a federal mandate for flex fuel vehicles.
We don't need to make any more ethanol (especially corn-based ethanol) than we are not to finally put a cap on the price of petroleum. A mandate that all cars sold in America be flex fueled (Any mix of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol) would forever place a ceiling on how much OPEC can charge for petroleum.
Right now, the equivalent price of a gallon of gasoline in the form of ethanol is about $2.25/gallon. That was VERY competitive with last Summer's gasoline prices that exceeded $4.00/gallon. However today, this is not competitive with gasoline selling for well under $2.00/gallon.
However, if every car sold in America could run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol, the prices of these alternative fuels made-in-America will forever be a cap on the price of gasoline and petroleum.
That is why it is imperative that the United States pass a flex fuel vehicle mandate as soon as possible.
But all is not lost. You see, NOW is the time to bring about a federal mandate for flex fuel vehicles.
We don't need to make any more ethanol (especially corn-based ethanol) than we are not to finally put a cap on the price of petroleum. A mandate that all cars sold in America be flex fueled (Any mix of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol) would forever place a ceiling on how much OPEC can charge for petroleum.
Right now, the equivalent price of a gallon of gasoline in the form of ethanol is about $2.25/gallon. That was VERY competitive with last Summer's gasoline prices that exceeded $4.00/gallon. However today, this is not competitive with gasoline selling for well under $2.00/gallon.
However, if every car sold in America could run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol and/or methanol, the prices of these alternative fuels made-in-America will forever be a cap on the price of gasoline and petroleum.
That is why it is imperative that the United States pass a flex fuel vehicle mandate as soon as possible.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Algea Power
Algae holds a lot of potential as a biofuel. As petroleum prices tumble making ethanol less competitive for the present, algae holds a double potential because it can be used to reduce carbon emissions from conventional power plants. While I'm not a fan of the proponents of global warming, there is no good reason to throw away perfectly good CO2 when it can be used to make transportation fuels.
Isaac Berzin has a prototype system in place at MIT's power plant. He's not alone.
http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Profiles&enDisplay=view&enPage=BlankPage&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles^l2141
Here's anothe researcher:
Algae hold the potential to far out-produce corn as a source of biofuel.
Isaac Berzin has a prototype system in place at MIT's power plant. He's not alone.
http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Profiles&enDisplay=view&enPage=BlankPage&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles^l2141
Here's anothe researcher:
Algae hold the potential to far out-produce corn as a source of biofuel.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Have you ever noticed?
Have you ever noticed that individuals and factions generally partial to greater state control of economic life, have found the evidence for global warming to be quite compelling?
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Another busy week for America and Ethanol
For starters, it was really nice to see Texas Gov. Rick Perry suffer defeat by the EPA recently. Gov. Perry, claiming to represent poultry farmers in Texas (as if the as if petroleum companies aren't encouraging him) led a charge to roll back ethanol production mandates. I have written before about the myth that ethanol is blamed for tight food supplies.
Now, FAITH BREMNER of http://www.tennessean.com/ writes a fine article in the link below:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080816/NEWS08/808160338/1025/NEWS01
WASHINGTON — Ethanol producers will use about a quarter of the U.S. corn crop this year, an amount that alarms ranchers and poultry producers who depend on corn to feed their animals. As the demand for corn and energy costs climb, so do prices at the grocery store.
But the ethanol industry's impact on the nation's supply of corn for feed isn't as dramatic as it may seem.
One-third of all the corn used to make ethanol ends up as an ingredient in feed that farmers in the upper Midwest — where most of the ethanol plants are located — give their cattle, poultry and pigs.
This year, farmers will feed 18 million metric tons of this ethanol byproduct, called distillers grains, to their animals, up from 2.3 million tons nine years ago. Last year they used 14.6 million tons. About 1 million tons will be exported to places such as Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and Japan.
The article goes on to say that distillers grains aren't easy to come by where there are no distilleries, so Texas chicken farmers are probably experiencing difficulty. Given that Texas is enjoying the fruits of soaring petroleum prices, I think the state can manage for a while. Funny how Gov. Rich Perry doesn't complain to the EPA about soaring petroleum prices. And let's face it! The EPA's mission on earth is not to regulate the price of chicken feed (or the price of tea in China for that matter).
Maybe Texas needs some distilleries producing distillers grain. Maybe Texas petroleum companies need to share some of their record profits subsidizing the state's embattled poultry farmers. I think Texas can solve this problem quite handily without any help from the EPA, the Federal Government, and the rest of the country. All they have to do is get with the program.
In other wonderful news...
Going to Google News and entering "Ethanol" for a search yields fresh news every day about new plants coming on line. Ethanol plants go up FAST. It takes 2 years from start to finish to put an ethanol plant on line.
There are a lot of new cellulosic ethanol plants coming on line too. Each one has rather unique technology; some which may turn out to be more efficient than others. The soaring price of petroleum is fueling a surging technological race to replace it with alcohol fuels.
FYI, the EPA mandate for corn ethanol has already been met (or will be so by the time you read this). The race is on for more cellulosic ethanol production which is the other half of the EPA ethanol mandate. Ooops! Gov. Perry didn't mention that when he whined about the price of chicken feed.
I'll tell you a little secret: Texas has some of the best darn energy engineers found on the planet. They can probably put up distilleries faster than the rest of us. All Texas has to do to fix their little chicken farmers' problem is get with the program.
In yet additional good news...
Yahoo AP reports:
Oil touches 3-month low on stronger US dollar
NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil fell to its lowest price in three months Friday, briefly touching the $111 level after the dollar muscled higher and OPEC predicted the world's thirst for fuel next year will fall to its lowest point since 2002.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080815/oil_prices.html?.v=21
Gee! Maybe some of these spot market speculators are figuring out that we have a very nice future with automotive fuels that will compete quite nicely with petroleum sold at ridiculous speculative prices. Maybe OPEC is starting to realize that the party is over. I wouldn't go dancing in the streets just yet. Alcohol fuels start losing their competitive edge at around $50/barrel; still a VERY healthy price for petroleum.
Nobody is going to starve because we put alcohol fuels in our cars. In fact, we'll all have more jobs making fuels here in the United States that bring a good buck to American workers.
Eventually, our idiot politicians are going to get bowled over by economics performing a work of nature that cannot be stopped. It would be nice if they act smart and pass the Open Fuels Standard Act of 2008 and make every car sold in America capable of running on any blend of gasoline or alcohol. Then we'll have even more domestic alcohol plants, more jobs, the price of petroleum will be forced down, the dollar will regain its glory and we'll all live happily ever after.
Have a nice day,
There is NO Santa Claus
Now, FAITH BREMNER of http://www.tennessean.com/ writes a fine article in the link below:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080816/NEWS08/808160338/1025/NEWS01
WASHINGTON — Ethanol producers will use about a quarter of the U.S. corn crop this year, an amount that alarms ranchers and poultry producers who depend on corn to feed their animals. As the demand for corn and energy costs climb, so do prices at the grocery store.
But the ethanol industry's impact on the nation's supply of corn for feed isn't as dramatic as it may seem.
One-third of all the corn used to make ethanol ends up as an ingredient in feed that farmers in the upper Midwest — where most of the ethanol plants are located — give their cattle, poultry and pigs.
This year, farmers will feed 18 million metric tons of this ethanol byproduct, called distillers grains, to their animals, up from 2.3 million tons nine years ago. Last year they used 14.6 million tons. About 1 million tons will be exported to places such as Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and Japan.
The article goes on to say that distillers grains aren't easy to come by where there are no distilleries, so Texas chicken farmers are probably experiencing difficulty. Given that Texas is enjoying the fruits of soaring petroleum prices, I think the state can manage for a while. Funny how Gov. Rich Perry doesn't complain to the EPA about soaring petroleum prices. And let's face it! The EPA's mission on earth is not to regulate the price of chicken feed (or the price of tea in China for that matter).
Maybe Texas needs some distilleries producing distillers grain. Maybe Texas petroleum companies need to share some of their record profits subsidizing the state's embattled poultry farmers. I think Texas can solve this problem quite handily without any help from the EPA, the Federal Government, and the rest of the country. All they have to do is get with the program.
In other wonderful news...
Going to Google News and entering "Ethanol" for a search yields fresh news every day about new plants coming on line. Ethanol plants go up FAST. It takes 2 years from start to finish to put an ethanol plant on line.
There are a lot of new cellulosic ethanol plants coming on line too. Each one has rather unique technology; some which may turn out to be more efficient than others. The soaring price of petroleum is fueling a surging technological race to replace it with alcohol fuels.
FYI, the EPA mandate for corn ethanol has already been met (or will be so by the time you read this). The race is on for more cellulosic ethanol production which is the other half of the EPA ethanol mandate. Ooops! Gov. Perry didn't mention that when he whined about the price of chicken feed.
I'll tell you a little secret: Texas has some of the best darn energy engineers found on the planet. They can probably put up distilleries faster than the rest of us. All Texas has to do to fix their little chicken farmers' problem is get with the program.
In yet additional good news...
Yahoo AP reports:
Oil touches 3-month low on stronger US dollar
NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil fell to its lowest price in three months Friday, briefly touching the $111 level after the dollar muscled higher and OPEC predicted the world's thirst for fuel next year will fall to its lowest point since 2002.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080815/oil_prices.html?.v=21
Gee! Maybe some of these spot market speculators are figuring out that we have a very nice future with automotive fuels that will compete quite nicely with petroleum sold at ridiculous speculative prices. Maybe OPEC is starting to realize that the party is over. I wouldn't go dancing in the streets just yet. Alcohol fuels start losing their competitive edge at around $50/barrel; still a VERY healthy price for petroleum.
Nobody is going to starve because we put alcohol fuels in our cars. In fact, we'll all have more jobs making fuels here in the United States that bring a good buck to American workers.
Eventually, our idiot politicians are going to get bowled over by economics performing a work of nature that cannot be stopped. It would be nice if they act smart and pass the Open Fuels Standard Act of 2008 and make every car sold in America capable of running on any blend of gasoline or alcohol. Then we'll have even more domestic alcohol plants, more jobs, the price of petroleum will be forced down, the dollar will regain its glory and we'll all live happily ever after.
Have a nice day,
There is NO Santa Claus
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Lithium-ion Batteries for Automotive Propulsion
I promised someone on the MLIVE.com Newstalk forum that I'd blog this. It's kind of a long story and there was no sense in doing all the typing and letting it slip into the archives never to be seen again.
So there I was at the AIPAC policy conference last June (2008) and we're at the break-out session on energy independence and what Israel is doing in that field. As I mentioned in my last entry, I hit it off immediately with Dr. Robert Zubrin who was sitting to my left on the panel of four presenters. Unfortunately, I can't remember for the life of me who the others were.
So anyway, for those of you who don't know, the State of Israel is embarking on a bold new adventure with electric cars. Because Israel is so tiny, commute distances aren't that great and electric cars are viable there.
Here's a brief article on the project:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=124445
The Israeli car will be developed by a joint-venture between Renault and Nissan. The cool thing about this car is that it will have a drop-out battery. Rather than requiring recharge, there will be special stations that are much like those 20-minute oil change places. You pull over the hole. The old battery is dropped out and a new one is plugged in. The whole process takes just a few minutes; probably no longer than it takes to pump gasoline in the car you own now.
So here's the rub. The guy presenting the Renault-Nissan prototype was sitting on the far left. He mentioned that this car would have a 110 mile radius on one battery charge. This immediately perked my ears for one basic reason: right now the "talk of the town" in electric cars surrounds the Tesla Roadster being developed in England. I'd also digress to point out that there is at least one person in Tesla's management from my Alma mater (University of Illinois College of Engineering) and also one from Israel.
Here's the link for the Tesla roadster:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
If you go over to the Performance tab on the web site, you'll notice that the Tesla Roadster has a radius of 220 miles on a single battery charge. This is TWICE that being quoted for the Renault-Nissan prototype.
So back to the AIPAC conference. It was now the question-and-answer period and I got up to the microphone. I introduced myself and asked the guy on the left a simple question: "The Renault-Nissan prototype gets 110 miles to a battery charge. Tesla motors is getting 220 miles to a battery charge. What is Tesla doing different?"
So the presenter on the far left stumbles and says: "Well... if you want a car that goes from 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, that's a whole 'nother thing. We're not trying to accomplish that here."
I felt like he was ducking my question so I pressed him and answered: "But WHAT IS TESLA DOING DIFFERENT THAT THEY GET 220 MILES ON A SINGLE BATTERY CHARGE?"
He responds: "We feel that the Tesla Roadster uses unproven technology. They use Lithium-ion batteries and we use conventional Nickle-Metal-Hydride batteries."
I thanked him for answering my question and let it go because I knew he was looking for an "out" and this was the best he could do. And besides, I kinda understood what he was saying, even if I didn't agree with him.
Just to tell you how lame this response was, a mere two weeks later, the wire services (AP, Reuters etc.) all ran stories about how Toyota can't keep up with demand for their hybrid cars. The bottleneck is that they can't make enough batteries quick enough. That was the bad news. The good news is that help is on the way. Toyota and Matsushita Electric (aka Panasonic) were building a joint-venture factory to make even MORE batteries for their hybrid cars and better yet! The new batteries were going to be Lithium-ion packs which were smaller, lighter and held more charge.
SO... apparently the world leader in hybrid cars thinks that there's nothing "unproven" about Lithium-ion battery packs for automotive propulsion. I think perhaps the Renault-Nissan folks need to strongly consider this improvement for their upcoming Israeli vehicle.
In all fairness to the presenter at AIPAC, the Tesla Roadster is hardly a family car. It's a two-seater built for performance. Moreover, it's battery pack is not designed to be conveniently swapped out like the Renault-Nissan prototype. This is a key feature of the Israeli car and essential to it's commercial viability. Designing a Lithium-ion battery pack that is also easy to swap out is a significant technical issue; one not to be taken lightly. Nonetheless, the notion that Lithium-ion batteries are "unproven technology" for automotive propulsion is definitely not shared by Toyota Motors. Frankly, I think the subject of Lithium-ion battery packs needs to be re-visited by those working on the Israeli project. Even if the first cars have the older Nickel-Metal-Hydride batteries, I'd like to think there would be little trouble upgrading once a newer Lithium-ion battery pack is developed.
So there I was at the AIPAC policy conference last June (2008) and we're at the break-out session on energy independence and what Israel is doing in that field. As I mentioned in my last entry, I hit it off immediately with Dr. Robert Zubrin who was sitting to my left on the panel of four presenters. Unfortunately, I can't remember for the life of me who the others were.
So anyway, for those of you who don't know, the State of Israel is embarking on a bold new adventure with electric cars. Because Israel is so tiny, commute distances aren't that great and electric cars are viable there.
Here's a brief article on the project:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=124445
The Israeli car will be developed by a joint-venture between Renault and Nissan. The cool thing about this car is that it will have a drop-out battery. Rather than requiring recharge, there will be special stations that are much like those 20-minute oil change places. You pull over the hole. The old battery is dropped out and a new one is plugged in. The whole process takes just a few minutes; probably no longer than it takes to pump gasoline in the car you own now.
So here's the rub. The guy presenting the Renault-Nissan prototype was sitting on the far left. He mentioned that this car would have a 110 mile radius on one battery charge. This immediately perked my ears for one basic reason: right now the "talk of the town" in electric cars surrounds the Tesla Roadster being developed in England. I'd also digress to point out that there is at least one person in Tesla's management from my Alma mater (University of Illinois College of Engineering) and also one from Israel.
Here's the link for the Tesla roadster:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
If you go over to the Performance tab on the web site, you'll notice that the Tesla Roadster has a radius of 220 miles on a single battery charge. This is TWICE that being quoted for the Renault-Nissan prototype.
So back to the AIPAC conference. It was now the question-and-answer period and I got up to the microphone. I introduced myself and asked the guy on the left a simple question: "The Renault-Nissan prototype gets 110 miles to a battery charge. Tesla motors is getting 220 miles to a battery charge. What is Tesla doing different?"
So the presenter on the far left stumbles and says: "Well... if you want a car that goes from 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, that's a whole 'nother thing. We're not trying to accomplish that here."
I felt like he was ducking my question so I pressed him and answered: "But WHAT IS TESLA DOING DIFFERENT THAT THEY GET 220 MILES ON A SINGLE BATTERY CHARGE?"
He responds: "We feel that the Tesla Roadster uses unproven technology. They use Lithium-ion batteries and we use conventional Nickle-Metal-Hydride batteries."
I thanked him for answering my question and let it go because I knew he was looking for an "out" and this was the best he could do. And besides, I kinda understood what he was saying, even if I didn't agree with him.
Just to tell you how lame this response was, a mere two weeks later, the wire services (AP, Reuters etc.) all ran stories about how Toyota can't keep up with demand for their hybrid cars. The bottleneck is that they can't make enough batteries quick enough. That was the bad news. The good news is that help is on the way. Toyota and Matsushita Electric (aka Panasonic) were building a joint-venture factory to make even MORE batteries for their hybrid cars and better yet! The new batteries were going to be Lithium-ion packs which were smaller, lighter and held more charge.
SO... apparently the world leader in hybrid cars thinks that there's nothing "unproven" about Lithium-ion battery packs for automotive propulsion. I think perhaps the Renault-Nissan folks need to strongly consider this improvement for their upcoming Israeli vehicle.
In all fairness to the presenter at AIPAC, the Tesla Roadster is hardly a family car. It's a two-seater built for performance. Moreover, it's battery pack is not designed to be conveniently swapped out like the Renault-Nissan prototype. This is a key feature of the Israeli car and essential to it's commercial viability. Designing a Lithium-ion battery pack that is also easy to swap out is a significant technical issue; one not to be taken lightly. Nonetheless, the notion that Lithium-ion batteries are "unproven technology" for automotive propulsion is definitely not shared by Toyota Motors. Frankly, I think the subject of Lithium-ion battery packs needs to be re-visited by those working on the Israeli project. Even if the first cars have the older Nickel-Metal-Hydride batteries, I'd like to think there would be little trouble upgrading once a newer Lithium-ion battery pack is developed.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Strategic Path To Victory In The War On Terror
Remember folks! You heard it here first.
THE STRATEGIC PATH TO VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE ELIMINATION OF PETROLEUM AS THE PRIME MOVER OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
There! Read that. Remember where you read it and quote your source often.
I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Robert Zubrin recently at the 2008 AIPAC policy conference. We hit it off right on the spot. I merely told him what I wrote above in bold letters. Dr. Zubrin commented that he ALMOST agreed. He repeated what I said and added one word. In Dr. Zubrin's opinion: "The strategic path to victory in the war on terror is the elimination of petroleum as the ONLY prime mover of our transportation system."
I'll let you decide whether that's "splitting hairs". I like his attitude. Besides! He's done a TON more research into this than I have. I've been merely following ethanol vehicle fuels because I grew up in Illinois farm country. I've long been convinced that America could produce enough ethanol to power our motor vehicle fleet; the largest in the world. Dr. Zubrin has written a book that all but proves it out.
The book is ENERGY VICTORY and it is presented at:
http://www.energyvictory.net/
Of particular importance, PLEASE review the on-line slide show highlighting his thesis.
http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_Presentation.htm
In short, Dr. Zubrin's thesis is that we could create competition in the motor vehicle fuel business by mandating that all cars sold in the US be flex fuel.
I concur with Dr. Zubrin. Giving American automobile fuel consumers CHOICE will cause competition that will break OPEC's absolute control over motor vehicle fuel supply. Make OPEC nations work for a living, competing against the rest of the world which can grow something that can be made into ethanol. This competition will cause a significant shrinkage in the capacity of the money pipeline to international terrorism.
We're not limited to corn. We're not even limited to ethanol as methanol is even cheaper to make. Methanol is still used in American open wheel auto racing.
I don't care how you add it up! Petroleum selling over $100/barrel makes ethanol competitive. Whether you use corn, sugar cane, coal, wood, or something we're currently throwing away, you can make alcahol fuels out of it.
There is even great potential for biodiesel. CO2 from power plants can be pumped into ponds growing oil-rich species of algea. The oil can be extracted and used for diesel fuel. There is a paper from the University of New Hampshire on the web that is somewhat dated, but interesting reading.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Now I know a lot of you are hearing all this talk about how ethanol is robbing the food supply. This is ridiculous, but apparently not obvious to all.
Let me assure you, there is compelling evidence to lead any rational person to know that ethanol is not robbing the food supply. Rather, it is increasing the food supply. Grocery prices have risen because trucking prices have risen due to high petroleum prices and more specifically, diesel fuel prices.
Nonetheless, this is explained by Dr. Zubrin and any number of other people as well as the USDA.
Dr. Zubrin writes:
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry—actually, because of it—the amount of corn grown in the United States has vastly increased. The U.S. corn crop grew by 45 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled, and the net U.S. corn production of food for humans and feed for animals increased 34 percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent over last year. America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
So much for the food dis-information campaign. There is also another insidious myth floating around about ethanol. This myth says that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the energy contained in the fuel. Even if this were the case, ethanol would still be a viable motor vehicle fuel for several reasons. It's not just a matter of whether we gain or lose energy. It's a matter of whether we can put it in our gas tanks and run our cars. The real fact is that modern farming and distilling methods have clearly made ethanol a net energy gain
This is best articulated by the American Coalition for Ethanol:
What does "net energy balance" mean?
What is ethanol's energy balance? Net energy balance is a term used to describe how much energy is needed to produce a product versus how much energy that product provides. Two professors that are long-time critics of ethanol claim that ethanol has a negative energy balance, but this is simply not true and has been debunked again and again by science. Scientific study after study has proven ethanol's energy balance to be positive. The latest USDA figures show that ethanol made from the drymill process provides at least 77% more energy as a fuel than the process it takes to make it. The bottom line is that it takes about 35,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy to create a gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs of energy. The net energy balance of ethanol is simply a non-issue.
http://ethanol.org/index.php?id=81&parentid=25#MISCONCEPTIONS
The raw price of ethanol is currently less than petroleum. It's just a matter of automakers adding an average of $100 to the cost of a vehicle to make it flex fuel. The economics will take care of themselves. In a few years, we would have millions of flex fuel vehicles on the road and fueling stations would have to carry ethanol/methanol/E85 because their raw cost is way lower than the present market price for petroleum products.
This is such a no-brainer! Brazil has already done it! We need not feel like we're driving in the dark without our lights on. Besides, if Brazil can do it, certainly the United States of America, land of the free - home of the brave, can do it.
The American motor vehicle consumer deserves CHOICE in motor vehicle fuels. The small scale of ethanol production in the U.S. over the past 3 years has proven itself. Depending on market conditions, ethanol may or may not be competitive. With flex-fuel vehicles that will not be a problem. We will always be able to choose the cheapest fuel.
Thus, whether or not ethanol completely replaces gasoline or not, the fuel supply for America's motor vehicle fleet can be secured with ethanol and other alcahol fuels. Once OPEC no longer controls the cost of our transportation, the money pipeline to terrorism shrinks significantly.
*UPDATE* (10/28/12)
I have added the web site Open Fuel Standard to the "My Blog List". The blog is "... the central action hub for all things concerning the vitally important legislation, The Open Fuel Standard Act.
I encourage my readers to follow this blog. - TINSC
THE STRATEGIC PATH TO VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE ELIMINATION OF PETROLEUM AS THE PRIME MOVER OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
There! Read that. Remember where you read it and quote your source often.
I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Robert Zubrin recently at the 2008 AIPAC policy conference. We hit it off right on the spot. I merely told him what I wrote above in bold letters. Dr. Zubrin commented that he ALMOST agreed. He repeated what I said and added one word. In Dr. Zubrin's opinion: "The strategic path to victory in the war on terror is the elimination of petroleum as the ONLY prime mover of our transportation system."
I'll let you decide whether that's "splitting hairs". I like his attitude. Besides! He's done a TON more research into this than I have. I've been merely following ethanol vehicle fuels because I grew up in Illinois farm country. I've long been convinced that America could produce enough ethanol to power our motor vehicle fleet; the largest in the world. Dr. Zubrin has written a book that all but proves it out.
The book is ENERGY VICTORY and it is presented at:
http://www.energyvictory.net/
Of particular importance, PLEASE review the on-line slide show highlighting his thesis.
http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_Presentation.htm
In short, Dr. Zubrin's thesis is that we could create competition in the motor vehicle fuel business by mandating that all cars sold in the US be flex fuel.
I concur with Dr. Zubrin. Giving American automobile fuel consumers CHOICE will cause competition that will break OPEC's absolute control over motor vehicle fuel supply. Make OPEC nations work for a living, competing against the rest of the world which can grow something that can be made into ethanol. This competition will cause a significant shrinkage in the capacity of the money pipeline to international terrorism.
We're not limited to corn. We're not even limited to ethanol as methanol is even cheaper to make. Methanol is still used in American open wheel auto racing.
I don't care how you add it up! Petroleum selling over $100/barrel makes ethanol competitive. Whether you use corn, sugar cane, coal, wood, or something we're currently throwing away, you can make alcahol fuels out of it.
There is even great potential for biodiesel. CO2 from power plants can be pumped into ponds growing oil-rich species of algea. The oil can be extracted and used for diesel fuel. There is a paper from the University of New Hampshire on the web that is somewhat dated, but interesting reading.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Now I know a lot of you are hearing all this talk about how ethanol is robbing the food supply. This is ridiculous, but apparently not obvious to all.
Let me assure you, there is compelling evidence to lead any rational person to know that ethanol is not robbing the food supply. Rather, it is increasing the food supply. Grocery prices have risen because trucking prices have risen due to high petroleum prices and more specifically, diesel fuel prices.
Nonetheless, this is explained by Dr. Zubrin and any number of other people as well as the USDA.
Dr. Zubrin writes:
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry—actually, because of it—the amount of corn grown in the United States has vastly increased. The U.S. corn crop grew by 45 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled, and the net U.S. corn production of food for humans and feed for animals increased 34 percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent over last year. America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
So much for the food dis-information campaign. There is also another insidious myth floating around about ethanol. This myth says that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the energy contained in the fuel. Even if this were the case, ethanol would still be a viable motor vehicle fuel for several reasons. It's not just a matter of whether we gain or lose energy. It's a matter of whether we can put it in our gas tanks and run our cars. The real fact is that modern farming and distilling methods have clearly made ethanol a net energy gain
This is best articulated by the American Coalition for Ethanol:
What does "net energy balance" mean?
What is ethanol's energy balance? Net energy balance is a term used to describe how much energy is needed to produce a product versus how much energy that product provides. Two professors that are long-time critics of ethanol claim that ethanol has a negative energy balance, but this is simply not true and has been debunked again and again by science. Scientific study after study has proven ethanol's energy balance to be positive. The latest USDA figures show that ethanol made from the drymill process provides at least 77% more energy as a fuel than the process it takes to make it. The bottom line is that it takes about 35,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy to create a gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs of energy. The net energy balance of ethanol is simply a non-issue.
http://ethanol.org/index.php?id=81&parentid=25#MISCONCEPTIONS
The raw price of ethanol is currently less than petroleum. It's just a matter of automakers adding an average of $100 to the cost of a vehicle to make it flex fuel. The economics will take care of themselves. In a few years, we would have millions of flex fuel vehicles on the road and fueling stations would have to carry ethanol/methanol/E85 because their raw cost is way lower than the present market price for petroleum products.
This is such a no-brainer! Brazil has already done it! We need not feel like we're driving in the dark without our lights on. Besides, if Brazil can do it, certainly the United States of America, land of the free - home of the brave, can do it.
The American motor vehicle consumer deserves CHOICE in motor vehicle fuels. The small scale of ethanol production in the U.S. over the past 3 years has proven itself. Depending on market conditions, ethanol may or may not be competitive. With flex-fuel vehicles that will not be a problem. We will always be able to choose the cheapest fuel.
Thus, whether or not ethanol completely replaces gasoline or not, the fuel supply for America's motor vehicle fleet can be secured with ethanol and other alcahol fuels. Once OPEC no longer controls the cost of our transportation, the money pipeline to terrorism shrinks significantly.
*UPDATE* (10/28/12)
I have added the web site Open Fuel Standard to the "My Blog List". The blog is "... the central action hub for all things concerning the vitally important legislation, The Open Fuel Standard Act.
I encourage my readers to follow this blog. - TINSC
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Welcome
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Welcome
Welcome to There is NO Santa Claus' blog. You can call me TINSC for short. There are several reasons I have adopted this nickname, but I'm just getting the blog started. There will be plenty of time to fill you in on the details.
posted by There is NO Santa Claus at 7:52 PM 0 comments
Welcome
Welcome to There is NO Santa Claus' blog. You can call me TINSC for short. There are several reasons I have adopted this nickname, but I'm just getting the blog started. There will be plenty of time to fill you in on the details.
posted by There is NO Santa Claus at 7:52 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
