$5.00 Diesel - time to put her up on blocks!

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:39:35 -0700, "-->> T.G. Lambach

You know, if you price out the cost per mile in diesel and gas engine, you will find out that the cost is close enough.

I just did a calculation on the 01 E320 with 24 MPG average at $3.95 per gallon premium and comes up with 16.5 cents per mile.

My 95 E300D with 29 MPG average with $4.59 diesel is 15.9 cents per mile...

Of couse if your MPG is much lower... then your cost is higher for diesel. I am so glad I filled my cat at $4.39 before it jumped 20 cents! Last fill is $90.49... even the attendant was stumped when I told him.

-->> T.G. Lambach wibbled:

That looks like a bargain - in the UK it's GBP £1.20 a litre (@USD $2.35/litre or about USD $8.80 for a US gallon or USD $10.56 for an imperial Gallon)

On May 20, 5:39=A0pm, "-->> T.G. Lambach

-->> T.G. Lambach

I've been looking into doing something like this for weeks now. It is a huge initial investment though. If you can build an electric car for under 6k you did it cheaply, and then you will only have a range under

30 to 40 miles. It takes an investment in the teens to twenty thousands to get range over 100 miles.

The only other problem with this is if it's done in any numbers significant enough to impact fuel demand, the additional electricity has to come from somewhere. And unless it's from more coal, the price of the electricity isn't going to be what it is now. Also, the infrastructure has to be increased to support the new demand.

...The only other problem with this is if it's done in any numbers significant enough to impact fuel demand, the additional electricity has to come from somewhere. And unless it's from more coal, the price of the electricity isn't going to be what it is now.

Coal? Why coal? Nuclear power is cleaner safer and cheaper than any stinking coal plant.

clueless! __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Take a look at this report put together by professionals for Congress comparing the estimated costs of energy from new coal vs nuclear plants. Without subsidies, nuclear costs 5.6 cents per KWH, compared to 4.6 cents for an advanced coal plant.

Plus, keep in mind that regardless of what is used to generate the electricity, to start using electricity to power cars on any widespread basis is going to require beefing up a lot of the existing infrastructure. That isn't going to be cheap and has to be paid for. Most of what is being used to distribute electricity today was put in place decades ago, when construction costs, permitting, environmental studies, remediation, etc were all significantly less.

Take a look at this report put together by professionals for Congress comparing the estimated costs of energy from new coal vs nuclear plants. Without subsidies, nuclear costs 5.6 cents per KWH, compared to 4.6 cents for an advanced coal plant.

Plus, keep in mind that regardless of what is used to generate the electricity, to start using electricity to power cars on any widespread basis is going to require beefing up a lot of the existing infrastructure. That isn't going to be cheap and has to be paid for. Most of what is being used to distribute electricity today was put in place decades ago, when construction costs, permitting, environmental studies, remediation, etc were all significantly less.

Ahh, but coal has a price not mentioned in the report you cited. While it mentions CO2 emissions, it does not mention the tons of radioactive emissions from the combustion of coal. That right when coal is burned it releases the uranium and thorium contained in the coal and it ends up in the smoke and the ash.

See

for thedetails.

Also to be considered is the effect of not making electricity from nuclear power. First consider that it is a relatively simple matter to convert a gasoline or diesel truck or automobile to burn natural gas, but it is very expensive to build and operate an electric car or truck. Also to run an electric car you have to generate electricity where you suffer an energy loss from the process of converting the gas or coal into electricity, and then you have losses in transmission of the electricity, and then you have losses when you charge the batteries in the electric car. The result is that you have to burn more fossil fuel to move the car down the road via electricity rather than by burning it in the engine of the car.

Nuclear also has the possibility of generating cheap off peak electricity to convert water to hydrogen that could be burned and it would also have other economic benefits as well. Consider if you will the production of portland cement. This requires a great deal of energy to run the kilns to produce the cement needed for use in concrete. Cheap power means cheap concrete for construction, and that means that the cost of building with concrete goes down and hence the cost of roads, housing and everything else drops accordingly. This would also reduce the demand for timber and that would also reduce costs to the economy.

The downside to nuclear power is the fear. It seems to me that the fear of catastrophic disaster is not justified by the reality. Education of the ignorant is the answer here.

If nuclear power is such a great idea, why won't the private insurance companies insure it? Without government guarantees, all nuclear plants would have to shut down today because no private insurance is available.

The best idea here in California for electric cars is to mount solar panels on your roof to capture sunlight and convert it to electricity to charge the batteries in the car.

On an industrial scale and a central power generation model, large solar farms can be built out in the desert and used to separate hydrogen and oxygen to fill fuel cells which can be transported to fueling stations for hydrogen powered cars.

Here is a link to a very popular web site about a zero carbon home on one of the most northern islands of Great Britain. So you don't have to live in California to make zero carbon technologies work.

Guess they would have to shut down France also.

Ok explain the economics to me here. How much would it cost for the panels? and how much would it cost for the equipment to charge the batteries? If I work during the day it would also seem to me that my car would be at work, so I guess I would need two sets of batteries and swap them out either when I get home from work or in the morning before I go to work.

Really? How many acres of solar panels would it take to make enough hydrogen to run a semi accross country (3,000) miles?

Nuclear power is zero carbon.

What about the costs of guarding the nuclear waste for thousands of years?

Trust me, the desert is huge. There are environmental preservation factors that have to be considered there as well, but I read recently that 19% of the vacant desert area of Arizona receives enough sunlight to provide all the energy needs of the current U.S. economy. And there are pro capitalist Chamber of Commerce types here in the desert where I live on our local Board of County Supervisors who see this as a huge opportunity for our depressed rural economy and are pursuing solar farms with great vigor.

Semis, and I know it is unfortunate for the many truck drivers who make a pretty decent living, will have to become a thing of the past. Freight will be moved by electrically powered trains because steel on steel is the most energy efficient form of transport.

It is not zero carbon. Huge amounts of carbon are released into the atmosphere in the construction and mining and refining phases. You can't just dig up uranium ore and put it into a reactor and you are not going to be able to do that work with nuclear powered tractors.

And it is not plutonium free or strontium 90 free or cesium 137 free, and those are really a bitch.

You are going to have to take the train to work, or an environmentally sensible bus. Without abundant, cheap oil, we are going to have to get to an economy that does not move two tons of glass and steel along with every person wherever they go. That paradigm has proved itself unsustainable.

But we can use our imaginations and creativity to create a world that is both sustainable and a better place to live.

That should have been obvious to everyone in the 70s, but, unfortunately we have wasted 30 years we could have been transitioning to a sustainable future. But there is adequate time and fossil fuel to build the economy we need.

I don't know if this is correct or not, I doubt it actually, but I read yesterday that we are importing up to 80% of our oil now. With manufacturing shipped overseas in search of cheap labor and no environmental regulation and faith in the dollar evaporating fast, how are we going to continue to import $1.5 - $2.5 billion worth of oil a day?

At some point the tankers are all going to head for China where all the value added goods are being produced. And that day may not be far off. Diesel is $5.29 at the local station here in California right now. We have to question how long our economy, which is based on credit, can sustain that sort of drain. The "stimulus" money the government is borrowing from places like China and sending out to people who filed taxes will not even cover a few months worth of the extra energy costs we all are incurring.

I was reading in popular science about the rebirth of the mirror generators. Using sunlight direct to DC is inefficient and expensive, while sunlight to heat a steam (or oil) turbine is very cheap. We have one in southern california, and apparently are going to get several more soon.

Still, having a solar array on my roof wouldn't be bad either. I've been looking at it for some time.

Either that or somehow take extra - erm - methane after the pizza parties and converting that a-la Mad Max.

OK, enough of these grand edge of tomorrow ideas, what about the backyard. I live in the suburbs of Phoenix. I have the world's best (and free) source of drying and heat about 350 days a year. BUUUUUUUUTTTTTT, my HOA does not allow a clothesline or a water solar panel, even if the street or my neighbors can't see it.

Chip

HOA's - the #1 reason for advocating anarchy! :P

You could also install a nuclear power reactor. Just go to the local 7-11 and purchase some U

Here in California, I've found that the state will offset some portion of the costs

I'm also seriously considering this type of system now - - I know the big issue with many ishaving to start in cold weather. However, in an area where the temperaturenever drops below 50 Fahrenheit, I can't see the problem. Considering I'veseen $5.01 and up for diesel and I can get veggie oil delivered for $2.50,it is a no-brainer.

The only thought is between Lovecraft or Elsbett and running something like

50% WVO. I suppose I could go with a two-tank system, but not sure of the actual benefits for a warm climate like here.

I'm thinking that - even if it costs a bit more in the short-term - the benefits long-term will be substantial.