You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
why gas is high
- Thread starter wildwood477
- Start date
Nevertheless, my point was that most of our electricity, around 70%, comes from fossil fuels which create carbon emissions. So we are shifting the emissions from cars to power plants.
You are correct. However, electricity has to come from someplace, and coal and natural gas are the only two viable sources which are increasing in use, and will continue to do so. Wind, solar and geothermal aren't even on the map yet.
Actually "oil" accounts for less than 2% of the power generation in the US, and that number is shrinking.
Of course you are correct, oil is only a small percentage of the total make up of fuels used to produce electricity. “Combustible” fuels probably would have been a better term. I was simply trying to make the point that electricity is not an energy “source” it is a form of energy that we produce by converting energy from other sources. You can’t mine or otherwise gather and collect electricity as you do other energy sources. Even from sources like solar and wind we are taking a different source of “stored” energy and using it to produce electricity.
Of course you are correct, oil is only a small percentage of the total make up of fuels used to produce electricity. “Combustible” fuels probably would have been a better term. I was simply trying to make the point that electricity is not an energy “source” it is a form of energy that we produce by converting energy from other sources. You can’t mine or otherwise gather and collect electricity as you do other energy sources. Even from sources like solar and wind we are taking a different source of “stored” energy and using it to produce electricity.
A) Electric motors are a highly efficient way of converting potential energy into kinetic energy. Much much more efficient than internal combustion.
B) Electric motors are a necessary step to make the SOURCE of energy completely independent. IC engines still require you to use gasoline. You want to use hydrogen fuel cells? Charge via solar? Use nuclear? Fine. But you need electric motors unless you have a "Mr Fusion" under the hood. (and even then, there is probably going to be an electric motor!)
C) Coal is not being imported from the middle east.
These seem pretty self explanatory.
When I said there would be a net benefit just moving to electric motors by itself, maybe I wasn't particularly clear in why.
We can make the process of converting fossil fuels into electricity more efficient in a centralized plant then we can in a vehicle. The efficiency of the electric motor means that even with the "Extra" step of Fossil fuel->Electricity-> kinetic (the current being Fossil fuel->Kinetic) there is still a net gain. The independence in the source of the electricity is what will allow us to remove the majority of the dependence on oil. (oil use in the production of plastics and whatnot are a different story)
We could move (short term) to basically running our cars on coal to decrease need for foreign oil until we can determine a better method of generating electricity. Nuclear will start to look pretty good to everyone at that point, too.
Ahh well, as to efficiency, yes I think there is a great deal that can be done there. Frankly the internal combustion engine bleeds energy at a rate of something like 80%. As far as efficient use of energy it sucks in a big way. If anything it vividly illustrates what a rich energy source oil is since it can bleed off energy at every poor and still send a 2000 lb vehicle hurtling down the road at 120 mph.
It is a concept that is 100 years old, older in fact. For 100 years all we have done is refine the original concept much like the firearm.
Actually this is something that truly puzzles and intrigues me to no end. I sometimes think that it is one of those cosmic underpinnings of reality. In the entire span of human history the advances of technology that have truly changed the face of history are relatively few. The internal combustion engine and the gun are prime examples. The internal combustion engine for example, pistons connected to a crankshaft. I’m sure at it inception it was earth shaking but after all this time it’s still what we’ve got. You’d think someone would have come up with something better by now. Same with the gun, hot gas pushing something down a tube. Again after all this time and with the technology available to us today you would think someone would have come up with something better. Almost makes you question if man came up with these on his own or if they were something on the order of divine inspiration.
It is a concept that is 100 years old, older in fact. For 100 years all we have done is refine the original concept much like the firearm.
Actually this is something that truly puzzles and intrigues me to no end. I sometimes think that it is one of those cosmic underpinnings of reality. In the entire span of human history the advances of technology that have truly changed the face of history are relatively few. The internal combustion engine and the gun are prime examples. The internal combustion engine for example, pistons connected to a crankshaft. I’m sure at it inception it was earth shaking but after all this time it’s still what we’ve got. You’d think someone would have come up with something better by now. Same with the gun, hot gas pushing something down a tube. Again after all this time and with the technology available to us today you would think someone would have come up with something better. Almost makes you question if man came up with these on his own or if they were something on the order of divine inspiration.
Almost makes you question if man came up with these on his own or if they were something on the order of divine inspiration.
No, not really.
HarrySchell
New member
^^^
If man's brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too simple to know.
-someone smarter than me.
If man's brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too simple to know.
-someone smarter than me.
No, not really.
Well if that is true then our progress in these areas is frighteningly dismal.
Hey, why don't we just put a wind generator on top of every car and use storage batteries? When the wind blows, your car goes. When you go downhill, you got the windmill. Of course, we'd have to raise the levels of a lot of bridges in the US so the windmills on top of the cars could fit under the overpasses. But we're Americans. We can do it.
(Just kidding).
(Just kidding).
HarrySchell
New member
The internal combustion engine and the gun are prime examples. The internal combustion engine for example, pistons connected to a crankshaft. I’m sure at it inception it was earth shaking but after all this time it’s still what we’ve got. You’d think someone would have come up with something better by now. Same with the gun, hot gas pushing something down a tube. Again after all this time and with the technology available to us today you would think someone would have come up with something better. Almost makes you question if man came up with these on his own or if they were something on the order of divine inspiration.
I don't know if I agree so much as when you have something well suited for the task, why change it?
As to the IC engine, the difference between 1960 and now is considerable in terms of efficiency and technology. Even 1990 and now. there are alternatives on the horizon, but technology is not there yet to make a simple and elegant device obsolete or more costly by comparison.
Same for guns. Very simple. They work with incredible reliability (mostly). What else do you want?
I don't know if I agree so much as when you have something well suited for the task, why change it?
Sensible enough argument if your are talking IC engine vs. IC engine. But the point I was making is that the IC engine operates at about 15% efficiency. That means that 85% of the energy derived from a gallon of gas never reaches the wheels. So the whole argument of “something that works” seems a little weak to me.
As to the IC engine, the difference between 1960 and now is considerable in terms of efficiency and technology. Even 1990 and now.
Exactly, all we have done is refine the process as first dreamed up a little over a hundred years ago. It’s not a new approach. It’s the same approach, we just do it better than we did a hundred years ago. Same with the firearm.
Also I don’t think this is for lack of motivation or desire. Obviously the man that does this will be rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. No I think it is because a truly new approach is not as easy as it sounds. No I think I lean more toward the camp that holds that that “new approach” will be the result of, at least, inspired revelation.
Same for guns. Very simple. They work with incredible reliability (mostly). What else do you want?
I watched that movie “Blackhawk Down” and my first thought was that we need something that kills more people faster. The gun as it is today has some very obvious limitations. One of the biggest of which is that you can’t carry enough ammunition. The other, equally obvious is better penetration through barriers.
HarrySchell
New member
^^^
I will have to do some research but I thought the IC engine functions at much better than 15% conversion of energy input to work output...more like in the 50-60% or better. Could be wrong about that. Let me look.
As to brand new approaches, the physics and chemistry books limit the options some. Superconducting electrical transmission lines are just coming into use, for example, but don't sound appealing to you since they are just an improvement on the old wire bit. Well, have you something new? Is it possible that we have run out some strings as far as they are going to go within the limits of our science, and there is no other answer that makes good sense (depending on how we define that is another topic, for the moment, if that's okay)?
I have never lost my taste for sci-fi, but some things don't change however much we wish they would or try. Even Japan has public mass murders, if the body count is less and the dead took longer to die.
The science of most everything changes every day, but the breakthroughs (versus refinements) don't happen so often. There remains a lot we don't know, I think we can agree, even Algoreans are getting daily surprises.
There do seem to be some physical laws we cannot yet beat. US aviation has a 100% success rate in that they have never left an airplane up there. Gravity wins, sooner or later.
I don't say all this in denial that there is not yet to be some great invention that will obsolete the IC engine (note that the turbine/rockjet/ramjet have, in some areas) or the firearm, or that we should stop looking.
I am saying that sometimes you bump into basics which limit you to refinement.
By example, there is the 2nd Amendment and the concept of the human right to effective self-defense. That to me is an eternal concept because there will always be bad people who think their path to happiness is hurting others. It will not matter if firearms become obsolete as long as such people exist.
Not trying to debate 2A, just illustrate my feeling that mankind is both fallen and limited, and we live in a world where some things are too basic, pervasive, to change fundamentally. Am I making sense?
I will have to do some research but I thought the IC engine functions at much better than 15% conversion of energy input to work output...more like in the 50-60% or better. Could be wrong about that. Let me look.
As to brand new approaches, the physics and chemistry books limit the options some. Superconducting electrical transmission lines are just coming into use, for example, but don't sound appealing to you since they are just an improvement on the old wire bit. Well, have you something new? Is it possible that we have run out some strings as far as they are going to go within the limits of our science, and there is no other answer that makes good sense (depending on how we define that is another topic, for the moment, if that's okay)?
I have never lost my taste for sci-fi, but some things don't change however much we wish they would or try. Even Japan has public mass murders, if the body count is less and the dead took longer to die.
The science of most everything changes every day, but the breakthroughs (versus refinements) don't happen so often. There remains a lot we don't know, I think we can agree, even Algoreans are getting daily surprises.
There do seem to be some physical laws we cannot yet beat. US aviation has a 100% success rate in that they have never left an airplane up there. Gravity wins, sooner or later.
I don't say all this in denial that there is not yet to be some great invention that will obsolete the IC engine (note that the turbine/rockjet/ramjet have, in some areas) or the firearm, or that we should stop looking.
I am saying that sometimes you bump into basics which limit you to refinement.
By example, there is the 2nd Amendment and the concept of the human right to effective self-defense. That to me is an eternal concept because there will always be bad people who think their path to happiness is hurting others. It will not matter if firearms become obsolete as long as such people exist.
Not trying to debate 2A, just illustrate my feeling that mankind is both fallen and limited, and we live in a world where some things are too basic, pervasive, to change fundamentally. Am I making sense?
Kills more people quickly.
Yes but they can’t be issued to the individual infantryman.
So where does the electricity come from that these electric cars run on? Can you say “oil”? At least to some extent, it’s oil, coal, and to a lesser percentage, hydroelectric.
In my state, most electricity comes from coal fired nuclear plants.
But as to why gas is so expensive: supply and demand? Demand is probably at an all time high, with developing countries industrializing and formerly car-less people buying cars. We in the US have had cheap gas for many years, and are finally catching up with the rest of the world, unfortunately. And IMO the ethanol scam isn't helping anything, from food to fuel prices. Sadly, my state mandates it's use, and as a co-incidence, the governor's brother owns an ethanol plant!
In my state, most electricity comes from coal fired nuclear plants.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a "coal fired nuclear plant"?
We in the US have had cheap gas for many years, and are finally catching up with the rest of the world, unfortunately.
Ummm, the globals markets are, well, global.
HarrySchell
New member
I watched that movie “Blackhawk Down” and my first thought was that we need something that kills more people faster. The gun as it is today has some very obvious limitations. One of the biggest of which is that you can’t carry enough ammunition. The other, equally obvious is better penetration through barriers.
Well, the problem there was discussed in the book and since then, up to the current engagements.
The 5.56 round has limitations. If I had to go to such a place, I would want something bigger. Ammo carriage is a matter of planning and/or resupply. The mission did not have contingency plans built in for enough of the variables, so people ran out of ammo, water, medical stuff, etc. Had the mission gone as planned, none of those failures would have happened. The plan was faulty, very optimistic with too few cut-outs for the unexpected. It's possible it never could have been carried off. Clinton refused to provide armored vehicles and this is certainly one failure. I speak as a reader of the book and in hindsight, not as an expert in military ops.
As to running out of ammo, if you are using something handheld to send energy (kinetic or other) at targets, there will be (under current physics/chemistry) a limitation on how much energy one can carry. Maybe you can resupply by separating hydrogen from water, or plugging into the electrical grid, but otherwise you can't get there from here. That we know of now. Even phasers have limits. Can you carry enough? Depends on the mission planning and resupply.
On ther other hand, Kipling said a man cannot have enough red wine, books or ammunition...and I agree.
HarrySchell
New member
Something new has come along, might replace the IC engine....
Honda unveils hydrogen-powered car.
The Wall Street Journal (6/17, B4, Takahashi, subscription required) reports that Honda Motor Co. on Monday "unveiled the latest generation of fuel-cell vehicle." The company "will begin leasing the third generation of a fuel-cell model called FCX Clarity in the U.S. in July. The company plans to lease the new zero-emission car in Japan this autumn." However, Honda President Takeo Fukui warned that "prices have to fall further for fuel-cell cars to reach the mass market." The Journal notes that a "lack of hydrogen service stations, among other factors, is limiting demand for [fuel-cell] cars, and therefore carmakers can't mass produce them, keeping production costs high."
Focusing on Honda's FCX Clarity, the New York Times (6/17, C1, Fackler) reports on the front of its Business Day section that the Clarity is "the world's first hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle intended for mass production." Honda will only produce "200 of the futuristic vehicles over the next three years, but said it eventually planned to increase production volumes, especially as hydrogen filling stations became more common."
USA Today /AP (6/17, 10B, Hosaka) notes that the "FCX Clarity is an improvement of its previous-generation fuel-cell vehicle, the FCX, introduced in 2005." Honda said a "breakthrough in the design of the fuel-cell stack, which is the unit that powers the car's motor, allowed engineers to lighten the body, expand the interior and increase efficiency." Now the car "has a range of about 270 miles a tank with hydrogen consumption equivalent to 74 miles per gallon." The Clarity's "fuel cell draws on energy synthesized through a chemical reaction between hydrogen gas and oxygen in the air, and a lithium-ion battery pack provides supplemental power."
The AFP (6/17) adds that Honda "is producing the cars at what it describes as 'the world's first dedicated fuel-cell vehicle manufacturing facility' in this town in Tochigi prefecture north of Tokyo." The automaker "already has 35 previous generation fuel-cell vehicles on lease contracts, mostly with Japanese and U.S. public institutions. It hopes the new version will have more widespread appeal."
In addition to the Clarity, Fukui announced that "Honda may produce hybrid cars in an emerging market by the middle of the next decade," Bloomberg (6/17, Komatsu, Kitamura) reports. "Specifically, producing a hybrid Civic model in Thailand may be an option because emerging markets have high import duties on cars, he said." Honda "currently builds gasoline-engine Civics in Thailand." The BBC (6/17), the Detroit News (6/17), New York's Sun (6/17), the U.K.'s Scotsman (6/17, Dalton), and Business First of Columbus (6/17) also cover the story.
Honda unveils hydrogen-powered car.
The Wall Street Journal (6/17, B4, Takahashi, subscription required) reports that Honda Motor Co. on Monday "unveiled the latest generation of fuel-cell vehicle." The company "will begin leasing the third generation of a fuel-cell model called FCX Clarity in the U.S. in July. The company plans to lease the new zero-emission car in Japan this autumn." However, Honda President Takeo Fukui warned that "prices have to fall further for fuel-cell cars to reach the mass market." The Journal notes that a "lack of hydrogen service stations, among other factors, is limiting demand for [fuel-cell] cars, and therefore carmakers can't mass produce them, keeping production costs high."
Focusing on Honda's FCX Clarity, the New York Times (6/17, C1, Fackler) reports on the front of its Business Day section that the Clarity is "the world's first hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle intended for mass production." Honda will only produce "200 of the futuristic vehicles over the next three years, but said it eventually planned to increase production volumes, especially as hydrogen filling stations became more common."
USA Today /AP (6/17, 10B, Hosaka) notes that the "FCX Clarity is an improvement of its previous-generation fuel-cell vehicle, the FCX, introduced in 2005." Honda said a "breakthrough in the design of the fuel-cell stack, which is the unit that powers the car's motor, allowed engineers to lighten the body, expand the interior and increase efficiency." Now the car "has a range of about 270 miles a tank with hydrogen consumption equivalent to 74 miles per gallon." The Clarity's "fuel cell draws on energy synthesized through a chemical reaction between hydrogen gas and oxygen in the air, and a lithium-ion battery pack provides supplemental power."
The AFP (6/17) adds that Honda "is producing the cars at what it describes as 'the world's first dedicated fuel-cell vehicle manufacturing facility' in this town in Tochigi prefecture north of Tokyo." The automaker "already has 35 previous generation fuel-cell vehicles on lease contracts, mostly with Japanese and U.S. public institutions. It hopes the new version will have more widespread appeal."
In addition to the Clarity, Fukui announced that "Honda may produce hybrid cars in an emerging market by the middle of the next decade," Bloomberg (6/17, Komatsu, Kitamura) reports. "Specifically, producing a hybrid Civic model in Thailand may be an option because emerging markets have high import duties on cars, he said." Honda "currently builds gasoline-engine Civics in Thailand." The BBC (6/17), the Detroit News (6/17), New York's Sun (6/17), the U.K.'s Scotsman (6/17, Dalton), and Business First of Columbus (6/17) also cover the story.
Something new has come along, might replace the IC engine....
And where do we get the fuel? (Think before responding)