Lab drives car to 100 mpg

NREL makes tailpipe dream a reality with battery-boosted Prius

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 9, 2008 at 9:06 p.m.
Updated June 10, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.

Text size

Photo by Preston Gannaway © The Rocky

Tony Markel, senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, shows off a Prius powered by batteries, solar energy and a sip of gas.

Photo by Preston Gannaway / The Rocky

Solar cells cover the car's roof.

More Energy

Comments

June 10, 2008

2:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Colorado_Bill writes:

As we all know, electricity out of a wall socket is magic. The burning of fossil fuels is in no way involved, and therefore it does not contribute to global warming...
June 10, 2008

5:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

TommyBoy writes:

So, all you have to do is pay $70,000 for a car that is almost as good as a Saturn Ion that costs $18,000. At $500 a year, providing you don't drive over 35 mph, it will only take 84 years to recover your investment, ignoring opportunity costs. Like asking third world people to starve so we can use corn for fuel, we are asking people to pay movie star prices for transportation.
June 10, 2008

5:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Bill,

As a point source of pollution, small engines are far less efficient than Large power plants. Also, you are making the assumption that all power plants in the future will be coal-fired. Other options may come on line including concentrated solar and wind pumped storage(both of which store energy in their systems for after dark use). Even if coal is employed, new plants will likely capture their CO2 and sequester it in old mines and wells.
June 10, 2008

6:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

TOMMYBOY,

I think you conveniently missed the part in the article about this being a prototype? Prototypes always cost more. This is a test bed for new technology. It isn't assembled by factory workers, its put together by engineers. Frankly, because of that, I;m surprised that it doesn't cost even more!

Mass production would bring that price down quickly, although early adopters always pay more for early models. If a standard Prius such as mine cost 26K before rebates, my guess is that initial production models would be 35K or less. Probably after a few years that would be under 30K.

Also, in doing the math, I calculated that the $500 in fuel savings was over a standard, non plug-in Prius. At that rate, it would take 10 years to recoup the extra price if the cost of gas doesn't go up, which it possibly will.

I'm not sure that a Saturn Ion is a good match for the Prius, which I think is the best car I have ever owned, but even if that is the case, its combined mpg is about 30. Assuming both cars drive 12,000 miles per year, the plug-in Prius would save about $1200 in gas cost at $4/gallon, again taking it about 10 years, not 84 to reach a break even point.
June 10, 2008

6:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

SteveFesch writes:

I wonder how the Fast Track diesel trains will compare to the new technology that will be available to cars/buses 10 years down the road when our multi billion dollar over budget disaster of a project is complete.
June 10, 2008

6:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

One Horse Power equals approximately 1 Kilowatt. Even a small car is going to need at least 20 HP. If you have 1000 of these cars you will need 20 Megawatt hours of power for every hour this small fleet drives. The PV panels on the roof may suppy 200 watts - a fraction of what is required. In a plug-in car future, your car is going to either spend a lot of time parked charging up on solar panels, or we are going to need one hell of a lot more power plants - of some kind.
June 10, 2008

6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

TC,

My understanding is that the cars will be used during the day, and will recharge at off=peak times when much of the grid capacity is idle. So... maybe it won't generate a great need for new plants.
June 10, 2008

6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ming writes:

WOW!!! If a Lab can get 100 miles/gallon, just think what a Chihuahua can get driving that car. Everyone knows that Chihuahuas weigh much less than Labradors and less weight means more mileage.
June 10, 2008

6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sixtysixdeuce writes:

The problem with this concept is that the people who really need 100 MPG cannot take advantage of it. For those of us who commute only 5, 10 or 20 miles to work, the savings is pretty minimal. People who have to drive to make money are the ones who are really feeling fuel prices, but a car that can only run 60 miles at 35 MPH per day isn't going to help them-especially those who need a larger vehicle to transport goods and materials.

And let's not forget that fuel prices are only one part of a dramatically increased cost of living. A 100 MPG hybrid isn't going to save you a dime on groceries and utilities (speaking of utilities, I'd be really curious what a plug-in hybrid does to an already ridiculous electric bill..........)

These things considered, even the lower cost hybrids on the market now typically take 4-7 years for the increased cost of the vehicle to be recovered in fuel savings. That's right about the time hybrid owners will be replacing $3,000 NiMH battery banks at their own expense.

There are more practical solutions to the fuel issue; I'll save $1,200 in fuel this year driving my 16 MPG vehicle by getting a job closer to home.
June 10, 2008

7:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Look, a Prius isn't the answer to much of any question, except "What is the name of Toyota's hybrid car?". REAL answers will involve truly GREEN cars that can take advantage of solar recharging, and/or hydrogen power cell technology.

When I was a kid, my Weekly Reader said we'd have flying cars by now. Boy was that prediction way off, huh? It seems every time we turn around we're hearing these mythical stories about 60, 80, 100 mpg, and green cars that are almost ready to go. But like the unicorn, nobody has ever really seen one. Except of course the electric cars that have price tags of $40k to $100k - do they think the vast majority can really afford that?

Here's the formula guys:

The car costs less than $20k + it has at least a 200 mile range + it recharges in less than an hour and/or has swappable batteries + it's really "green" - much of any pollution = many, many sales and happy customers.

Now, will ya'll stop yapping about it, and building stuff we have no way of affording, and build what the market needs and is demanding???
June 10, 2008

7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

tmk50 writes:

No mention of the Chevy Volt in the article. It got the green light for production last week. GM will build this car, and build it in Detroit (a city that desperately needs some good news). Supposed to be in showrooms by the end of 2010, my guess is that it will not cost 70k :)

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
June 10, 2008

7:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Sixty,

I wade in on these hybrid matters largely because I own one and consider it to be the best car I have ever owned. Your point regarding people who commute short distances ( although I personally don't consider 20 miles to be a short commute) is valid. For some people, a small cheap high mpg car makes far more sense. Of course anyone who hauls tools and cargo as I do in my landscape business needs a truck, although they could be helped by true hybrid technology ( not the performance hybrid stuff that GM is shilling). I don't buy the argument that people need a big car to take kids to soccer practice. I used to drive 4 kids in my Subaru wagon. It worked just fine for that purpose and so would my Prius today( there's even room in the back for balls and gear!).

"(speaking of utilities, I'd be really curious what a plug-in hybrid does to an already ridiculous electric bill..........)"

I have already invested in a 3 KWH PV system on my roof and would consider adding to it to compensate for my own usage. I think it would be great to nearly free myself from the gas pump using my own home generated energy. I have to say though that this wouldn't be a solution for everyone.

"That's right about the time hybrid owners will be replacing $3,000 NiMH battery banks at their own expense."

Actually, you need to give Toyota and Prius buyers a little more credit. Before even buying mine, I checked on the durability of these batteries. Its an urban myth that they die after a few years and will cost 3K to replace. The Japanese fleet of first generation Prius that came out about 7 years ago is still powered by the original batteries and Toyota expects them to last far longer than that. When replacement time comes, it will be expensive but probably quite a bit less than the 3K figure you are quoting. Economies of scale are already at work to drive the replacement cost downward.

Toyota announced recently that it has sold a million Prius and I have heard that they are having a hard time keeping up with demand. Too bad its a Japanese company using American developed technology and not American auto makers. I wonder why they haven't been making hybrids? Oh yeah, that's right they were too busy making SUVS!
June 10, 2008

7:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

By the way Greenleaf, I'm interested to hear why your Prius is "the best car you've ever owned". I finally sold mine because it was too small, uncomfortable, and the 42 mpg (at best) wasn't offset by the annual scheduled maintenance costs and the upcoming battery replacement costs (I won't even go into what a fairly ugly body design it has). There has to be an affordable, full-electric option that people can afford. Don't get me wrong, I understand that things are usually done in "steps", but we seem to be totally lagging behind technology in this case.
June 10, 2008

7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

The hybrid seems to me to be all about hype. I have owned 2 cars over the past 15 years that both delivered 50 MPG on a regular basis and would do 85 MPH. Neither were hybrid and both cost under $10K new (which is actually why I bought them - gas is cheap cars aren't). You can't buy either one of these cars anymore (Ford Festiva, Suzuki Swift)
June 10, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Udon writes:

What always seems to be left out of these conversations is the role that conservation plays in the energy equation. Although a 50-100mgp car is nice, they are still energy hogs. The real solution is to abandon the personal transportation vehicle and revert to trains, bikes and..gasp..walking. Live, shop, work all within a small radius. It's such a simple and elegant solution. We seem hell bent on maintaining and even increasing the energy we consume instead of asking if there is someway we can be just as happy with less.
June 10, 2008

7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Demand is what drives the market in most countries. In this country the people demanded, and received, SUV's for a large percentage of the driving population. The reasons for this are numerous, but the most recurring are that people can see traffic conditions better when up higher, and they feel safer when they and their families are in a larger vehicle. Both are understandable.

I never had a Festiva myself TC, but a friend did and he seemed to really love the thing. I did have an Escort that got a bit over 40mpg, and it ran over 300k miles with no major problems. Seems we get a lot of people who like to bash the home teams instead of seeing that they are working on new technologies (the Volt, Escape Hybrid, the EV1 ten years ago, etc), so it sounds like people with an agenda to me, but who knows.

And I can tell you Greenleaf, that I was told my Prius would require battery replacement, as would be generally expected, between 90k and 120k miles, by the service rep. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if it could go more, but that's their schedule, not mine. If I remember right, it was actually 15 batteries at about $125 to $140 each, plus the labor, but I could be wrong on that because it's been awhile and I've gotten so much input about the battery setup over the years, and who knows if the people doing the talking knew what they were talking about.
June 10, 2008

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

SirRealist,

I've owned a Buick, Volkswagons, Subarus, a caravan and a host of American made work trucks. I've driven other cars, including mercedes, BMWs etc.

I find the Prius to be comfortable, and very logically laid out. With its paired engine/ motor technology it has plenty of zip for passing and acceleration. Then there's the fuel economy. You only got 42 mpg? the worst I have ever gotten is 47 MPG and that was during the snow crusted tomes winter before last with cold temps and snow tires and extra weight aboard. In the summer, I routinely get 50 mpg. See my previous posting re battery replacement.

Some of the rest is just a matter of taste, and there's no accounting for that, either mine or yours. I actually like the look for the same reason I liked my homely old '73 Beetle: it stands apart and makes a statement.
June 10, 2008

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Stonehenge writes:

Top MPG is no farther away than our childhood cartoons -- Fred and Barney weren't paying at the pump!!
June 10, 2008

8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Greenleaf, nope, never got close to 50. You're right on the looks aspect - I once owned a TR7 "wedge" in the 70's - ugliest thing I ever bought.

Don't know what to tell you on the battery situation though. The mechanic implied it was going to be a pricey situation. Doesn't really matter now though. Over the years, having driven a number of autos made by most major manufacturers, I've come to the conclusion that they really are pretty close in most comparative categories, and they all require maintenance, and they all break at some point.

Because of that, I made a personal decision about 18 months ago, to support the US makers. If their products were truly second-rate, I wouldn't buy them. But I find them to be very competitive, and for every person who wants to tell a story about some "problem" they've had with a US made car, I can find one (or more) that have had problems with their imports. People work hard for their money and are entitled to buy what they want. I've just made the decision to support American companies, probably because in my industry I've witnessed massive off-shoring over the past 20 years. I feel that if we don't support our industries, one day we'll all wonder where our job went, and I have no desire to live in a welfare nation.
June 10, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

adamrussell writes:

This is a good start. Mark my words, solar is the way of the future.
June 10, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

AbleGoodman writes:

Electricity is a cheap substitute for fossil fuels, right?! Hey, no problemo! Just create a phony electricity "shortage", jack the price up by 1000%, and you're all set to gouge the hell out of the consumers of electricity. This shortage/gouge scam can be done with almost any product.
So get a clue, socialist wannabees. This is why freedom, decentralization and self-sufficiency will trump serfdom, centralization, and "interdependence" EVERY time in the reality of Nature's free-market cause-and-effect universe.
Oil companies and "government" will lie if the truth were funnier. In contrast, market forces are REAL. Decreased consumption, increased competition, and increased production of alternative power sources will bring oil prices right back to normal market levels.
Political "money" (as contrasted with commodity-based REAL money) is a stupid-human delusion specifically designed to allow the clever to steal the labor of the ignorant and naive.
Viewing everything through a lens of money is disheartening and confusing. The cure is to keep your eye on what's REAL, and produce as many of your own needs as possible. Grow "victory" gardens and ride electric bicycles and motorcycles.
And let's not forget to demonize and POLARIZE socialism so we can rid America of its blight of fascism and get back to individual freedom and the Bill of Rights.
Use technology to enhance individual freedom, NOT reduce it!
June 10, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Interesting thing about solar electric. I installed a small PV system about 10 years ago just to see how it works. I was actually pretty impressed. You aren't going to run a fridge or a wash machine off it, but it's great for lights and TV. Recently I thought I might expand the system. I was shocked at the current price of PV. I read an article in the Economist that says the price of PV has increase 1600% since 2003 due to a shortage of raw material, and increased demand for PV panels.
June 10, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

gneubeck writes:

With the current composition of the U.S. Senate, our Nation doesn't stand a prayer of extricating ourselves from this self imposed dilemma. Simply review the recent Senate action on HR 3121 where Harry Reid and his minions such as Clinton and Obama, in sync with the Left-Wing Fringe Elements in our society, voted AGAINST the opening of a miniscule portion of ANWAR; AGAINST shale oil extraction of which America has the equivalent of ten Saudi Arabia's in recoverable reserves; and, AGAINST accelerated efforts to facilitate the gasification of America's abundant reserves of coal.

The task then for the RATIONAL MAJORITY in our Nation is SIMPLY to recognize the SOURCE that sustains and provides the base of support for the LEFT-WING FRINGE ELEMENTS in our society; and, to undertake a decisive role at the ballot box to isolate and relegate these FRINGE ELEMENTS THAT COMPRISE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE BASE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY to a decibel level that is barely audible. ANY TIME you vote for a Democrat, ANY DEMOCRAT, you're unmistakably multiplying the capacity of these LEFT-WING FRINGE ELEMENTS to continue to promote their radical agenda, and to bring our Nation to its knees. A circumstance that no external power ever could have accomplished.

The ability to restore our Nation's status; and, to sustain this Sacred Land that the RATIONAL MAJORITY so proudly calls AMERICA, resides in your hands at the ballot box.

GREG NEUBECK
June 10, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

kirbysfriend22 writes:

This isn't perfect! It's too expensive! We shouldn't be researching such nonsense! Stick with OIL, there's plenty left!

Just kidding. Some people simply don't make any sense. How can folks can complain about this, try and find nothing but fault? Some of these comments are commical. This is science in action. This is what research and development is all about. As many others have said, this is a proto-type and mass production cost would be much less. And the argument that we shouldn't waste time on this because charging the cars use fossil fuels too.....ridiculous. Energy technology will come along on the mass scales whether it be cleaned up coal, hydrogen, nuclear, wind, whatever. And solar panel technology is becoming more efficient and productive all the time. It's great to see NREL doing this work.

Pick up the slack DETROIT before you're finally put out of your misery. It's about time the American car companies start really getting their act together. Why is it that government research and high school auto clubs seem to be out-performing our own proud auto industry with these electric cars?
June 10, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

So Kirby, tell me where, exactly, is America in general, and Detroit specifically, in the process of developing electric cars - I mean, since you seem to know so much as to be able to take everyone to task for their apparent lack of effort.
June 10, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ex_MislTech writes:

100 mpg was exceeded long ago in a prototype that had
zero hybrid features.

It was a 2 seater inline made by VW.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/article...

Furthermore it got very close to 300 mpg on Diesel.

If we can get some Bio diesel online made from Algae
from Valcent Technologies out in the middle of the
desert on non-arable non-farm land our problem is solved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hioZ7...

100,000 gallons per acre per year.
June 10, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

temurlan writes:

Everyone is always complaining that we need alternate energy solutions, especially now that gas prices are double what they were before. The NREL creates a "experimental prototype" with some promising results and everybody comes out of the woodwork with negative comments and pessimistic feedback. It's an experiment. I say good work to the guys at the lab. Keep it up.

On the flip side, to Udon, biking and walking? Ever been around here in the winter? Go back to the commune.
June 10, 2008

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Good point temurlan - the research is good. I think people are questioning it on several grounds though, and that is justifiable. I'll have to agree whole-heartedly with you on the Udon comment - many of us have lived 20+ miles from work for many, many years, but I'll be happy to let Udon come pick me up on his bike and take me to and from work :)
June 10, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Buddi writes:

We seem to be asking the wrong question. The right question just might be "why does everyone need his or her own chariot (complete with a garage door opener)"?

Yes, we have gotten ourselves in a box where we need to make a daily pilgrimage to where money is being handed out in recognition of our showing up. And in so doing, an obscene amount of fuel is burnt. There’s got to be another (better) way.
June 10, 2008

9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

billyboy writes:

Jeez, the only reason I clicked on this article was I thought a Labrador Retriever was driving a car...
June 10, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

john1 writes:

I would be highly interested in purchasing one of these cars.
June 10, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

I think the major misunderstanding is that this is a laboratory experiment. Electricity doesn't come from a wall socket. Electric cars use LOTS of electricity. Try this out. A typical household electrical service is 48KW at full load (which you very seldom even come close to). Your new Mustang is capable of consuming 5 times this much power under hard acceleration. And it's a lot more fun than watching the washing machine spin.
June 10, 2008

9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

TC,

The cars you mentioned were discontinued for lack of interest. You and I might appreciate how economical they are, but other people want comfort and all the bells and whistles! Plus' my impression was that they were really only good two passenger cars.

Have you seen the European "Smart car" they are a pricey equivalent.
June 10, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

SirRealist,

I would prefer buying an American product too and they have largely closed the quality gap but not the MPG gap. Maybe the Volt would get me into the American market again. We'll see!
June 10, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Udon,

If you're trying to import the European model of city living/working into the USA, you're about 200 years too late.

As anyone who has lived in Europe can tell you, those cities were laid out when walking was the only method of transport. As such, living space and office/business locations were built very close to each other. The term "commute" would have drawn blank looks.

When things did start to spread out a little, it was fairly easy to install mass transit systems that joined the major areas very efficiently.

US cities were, for the most part, laid out much differently. We had a lot of land, and people used the room. So -- housing and working areas were separated, so much so that there is no logical way to lay out mass transit systems. The older east-coast cities nautrally come the closest to the European models, and have decent systems. Western states are so spread out that it's close to impossible to build systems that spread out far enough to reach all the suburbs, and yet maintain enough ridership on each link to economically justify them.

The West will always have some sort of public transit, but not enough for us to eliminate personal transportation.
June 10, 2008

9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

mcbrink26 writes:

What happens when 2 Toyota Priuses crash?

A panda is born in a Whole Foods parking lot.
June 10, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

McGruff writes:

Living in the land where the democratically controlled state government in collusion with Constellation Energy has sent the cost of electricity through the roof, I am forced to ask what is the cost to simply recharge the battery for someone driving in the range of 15,000 to 20,000 miles a year. Without knowing the answer, I must conclude that the cost of recharging the battery is not going to be that big a bargain.
June 10, 2008

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lesh writes:

I see that no-one has mentioned the ineficiency of electrical power distribution. Any increase of efficiency of the power station of the individual gasoline engine is offset by the losses in distribution. Also, the grid will be severly over taxed if everyone has an electric car.

Does anyone else remeber that you used to be able to buy a 100% electric car in Denver during the early 1980s (Lectric Leopard) which had about a 50 mile range?

Headlights, heat and air conditioning all take a huge chunk out of that range.
June 10, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

You can actually buy an all electric car today. It's called the Zenn. It has a 50 mile range. No HVAC. I have a neighbor that has one. He charges it with PV panels. Zenn is a good name for it because you need to be very patient while it charges and never venture far from home.
June 10, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bonobo writes:

The car is just a precursor to what will be the norm in the next decade. Not only are lithium ion batteries getting far better and cheaper, but one company has made a much improved and vastly cheaper lead-acid battery that can be recycled. Motorola's introduction of high voltage power transistors in the early 80s has paved the way for all electric machines, tools and vehicles.

BIG PROBLEM: Congress has wasted 35 years in not moving the power grid in the U.S. to technologies other than coal. Nuclear is safe and powers a supermajority of electricity in Japan and France, and could be here too. Congress has been bought off by groups who think they no best, which means keeping coal in use at 2/3rds of our electric plants, by default.

Congress is made up of people we elect who care more about the park or bridge for their next election than the long term well being of our country: otherwise they would have addressed energy starting in the early 70s.

The U.S. needs more capacity now, and more & better distribution lines & controls (shutdowns & brownouts cause losses to businesses big time). Even with better electric systems, the U.S. is still going to need vast amounts of oil, and thus Congress must also end restrictions on getting oil within the U.S. and then refining it and finally pipelines to get it to major markets. Infrastructure, infrastructure.

Roadblocks need to be bulldozed by Congress with the leadership of the President. Out with the wimps.
June 10, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Mamma:
Man! When I was young and foolish I rode those things. What a rush! I don't ride anymore - now that I'm old and foolish.
June 10, 2008

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

SJones6335 writes:

Everyone keeps mentioning solar power & just plain old electric motors. Personally I think the future is in air powered engines. They are really quite incredible. There is a video on youtube which features two companies that are trying to perfect them. The distances these two very different designs can travel will amaze you. This alternative using compressed air has absolutely no pollution & there are no batteries to replace. Check it out & I think you will agree.
June 10, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

YourNeilness writes:

The best thing to do is to find a way to live near where you work. After becomming unemployed last fall, I started looking for jobs only near my home. I sent plenty of resumes and applications to jobs only within a few miles radius, and got a few interviews, but the competition was so steep, I never landed a job. After several months things became so desperate that I had to open up my options to anything I could find. I eventually got a job with a 20+ mile commute. It stinks, but I had to do it.

I just love this economy that the wonderful Republican Neocons have given us. A job market so tight that people with excellent qualifications are seeking lower level jobs that usually lesser skilled/educated people would have. Which makes it that much more difficult for those people to get those jobs, so they either have to go unemployed or start working at McDonalds or something. The REAL trickle-down effect! Add the rising cost of everything (gas, food, health care, etc.) and its a wonder that the average person can even get by anymore. Oh wait, I seem to remember a quote from our esteemed president, lets see if I can paraphrase it.."Wow, a single mom working three jobs, uniquely American." Thanks George, for bringing us the "America" you envisioned!
June 10, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

frgough writes:

Let's sum up all the pro-electric car, renewable energy crowd.

"You are selfish pigs for desiring personal freedom. You must live where we tell you and travel how we tell you for the good of the collective (sorry, the planet)."

Here's all you need to know about electric cars and solar power:

Energy density of a lithium ion battery: 600 joules per gram.
Energy density of gasoline: 47,000 joules per gram.
Energy in sunlight: 1 kilowatt-hour per square meter.
Energy in a 2-inch cube of Uranium: 18.7 million kilowatt-hours.
June 10, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

polyglot writes:

When do we get to talk about the dirty process of making solar panels? Better yet when do we get to talk about the warming that would take place in a solar field. You think the parking lot of your local big box is bad just wait. Doesn't solar take water as well, or at least some nasty chemicals and salts?

Let's call it what it is - behavior modification through regulation. Enviro's want to break up the encomy, force us to drive smaller cars or bike to work, live in smaller communities where we do not drive more than a couple of miles for anything.

I suppose they will learn just as the Soviets did and the Chinese will eventually - capitalism adapts and changes to meet demand. They can green wash all they want. Capitalism will adapt and absorb the changes. We are on the edge of a very expensive reindustrialization involing wind power that still needs natural gas or another fuel for support and kills lots of birds, solar which has its own set of issues, bio fuels which we can't plant or water enough of (even if we do go back to being an agricultural economy).

Coal and oil still remain the best choices for the next 10-20 yrs. Running a distant second is nuclear

regardless of what it is where is the infrastructure going to come from and who is going to pay?
June 10, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

jaymoveonorg writes:

To meet the future needs there will be no one stop solution.

We need to let the oil/gas companies drill domestically and off-shore. Increasing taxes on the oil companies will only increase what we pay at the pump. With the increased tax revenues we will get from all the additonial drilling for oil and gas we can take this and give tax incentives to improve the technology for wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, clean coal, improved batteries and other renewable energy sources.

Only the combination of the above we will be able to meet our future energy requirements in the decades to come.
June 10, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lesh writes:

SJones6335
Where does your compressed air come from?????
June 10, 2008

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

chartguy writes:

Why is it that nuclear has dropped off the radar? The French are not known for their technical wizardry, but they managed to make it work quite well. In 2002, nuclear produced 79% of France's electricity. They exported it!
June 10, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

SJones6335 writes:

Lesh,
It may be using electricity to power the compressor, but that is a lot cheaper than having to plug your car in all night just to travel a short distance.
June 10, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

member548 writes:

As pointed out by some, not every one can be helped by small hybrids. In my business I need a 1-ton truck and in real world use gasoline ones get about 12mpg and diesels get around 20mpg. At the moment I just pass my cost onto my customers. The same goes for our nations massive reliance on truck shipping where most trucks get 8mpg or less.

Strangely in our nation we have way over hyped hybrids when diesel cars get roughly the same fuel mileage with out the dubious consequences of battery pollution. Mercedes sells a large car that gets 40mpg highway using their diesel technology. It's just another area the US has been left behind on, as far as I know the smallest diesel powered US made vehicle is a 3/4 ton truck, and the common light truck diesels are ridiculously over powered, as opposed to being optimized for economy, since they are actually comparable to 18-wheeler diesel engines in horse power.

Motorcycles and changing the laws so street legal ATV like machines can be sold is another over looked solution. With high fuel prices more and more people should be willing to make use of these fuel misers in nice weather.
June 10, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Drillbit writes:

Uh, Bill, FYI...
Automotive gasoline engines are 25%-30% efficient AT BEST.

Large electric power plants are close to 50% efficient in their use of fossil fuels.

Do the math.

Switching from gasoline powered vehicles to electric vehicles would double America's overall fossil fuel efficiency. If the electricity comes from solar, wind, hydro or nuclear, there's no fossil fuel consumption at all.
June 10, 2008

12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Udon writes:

temurlan,

I used to live in Saskatchewan, Canada; likely a colder place than you've ever experienced. All you have to do is dress for the weather, people have been doing it for thousands of years (on and off the commune). But, whatever, I just thought that it might be necessary at some point to examine a new paradigm with respect to personal transportation. I didn't realize that this discussion was only for people with your point of view. I'm rooting for $9/gal. It's time to stop taking an extremely valuable resource like oil and BURNING it.
June 10, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

JMS writes:

Drillbit,

That's fine and dandy but there is little-no infrastructure for these vehicles. Try taking them around the country for a trip and see where it leaves you (unless one is a urbanite and rarely needs a vehicle).

A better source is the Shale Oil underneath Colorado. It can be extracted for roughly 30-60 dollars/ barrel. There are roughly 1 TRILLION BARRELS sitting underneath this state and extracting this resource can give Colorado a big economic boost. We already have the infrastructure in place and Shale Oil would go a long way in decreasing our dependence on foreign fuel. We already have the technology for it but politicals from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and other hard-core environmental groups are fighting it.
June 10, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

frgough,

First of all, that is your opinion of what people are saying. I don't accept that. I for one, while being an environmentalist, am also a fiscal conservative and businessman. I appreciate efficiency, especially if it pays for itself over time and eventually pays a bonus. I don't see investing in energy conservation and renewables as being a sacrifice. Designers are developing high mileage cars that will travel long distances with no sacrifice in speed or comfort. The same technologies can be applied to larger cars and trucks, albeit with less efficiency.

Your energy comparison is interesting. Obviously, gasoline has a lot of pent up energy. Unfortunately when burned, much of it is lost as heat and not employed as mechanical energy. So much of it, that we actually have to cool automobile engines using fans and more energy to keep the engine from overheating. We also have to keep extracting gasoline because once burned, its gone. Solar energy just keeps coming. The 3 kwh system on my roof produces at least 80% of my household need over a years time and will for 30 years to come. For every 3 kwh of electricity produced, that's 1 pound of coal that doesn't need to be strip mined and hauled hundreds of miles by rail, only to be burned and expended with most of its energy lost as heat. On a bright summer day I can produce enough electricity to prevent 6 pounds of coal from being burned. Over the 30 year expected lifespan, that's a lot of coal that won't be burned and a lot of air and water that won't be polluted.
June 10, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

SJones6335
You make a good point. Compressed air is a far more efficient energy storage method than batteries. What's even more efficient is compressed hydraulic oil (no adiabatic compression loss). Compressed hydraulic oil has been used in hybrid busses for several years. This method is about 4 times more efficient than recovering braking energy with electric motor regen.
June 10, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I'll never understand why so many people are afraid of renewable energy. Do the boogeyman stories from big oil lobbyists really have that much of an effect on you?
June 10, 2008

12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

JMS,

A recent government study indicates that to drive oil shale extraction at maximum rates would require 10 large coal fired power plants just to supply the heaters. They also project that 200,000 acre feet of water would be required annually, as much as Denver uses in a year. In the 10 or 20 years it would take oil shale to come on line, other alternatives will be available that won't pollute our air and water to anywhere near the degree oil shale would. All this was reported in RMN a few months ago.
June 10, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/...
June 10, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

JMS writes:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs...

Shale Oil is being extracted now. The green alternatives won't be ready for at least another 30+ years, including infrastructure.
June 10, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Auto_Efficiency_Researcher writes:

The Big Idea:
Internal Combustion Engine => 40% typical efficiency [fuel tank to drive shaft], practical limit is not much higher
Electric Drive Motor => 90% typical efficiency [battery to drive shaft]
Why would you resist that opportunity when available?
June 10, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Solar-powered homes work. I've seen them here in Denver. A roof-sized collection area is enough to power the home, and in some cases even sell power back to Xcel.

Today, the panel are too ugly for most people to consider. I think that's a short-term problem. Eventually, there's little reason most homes could not be independently powered, with utilities as a back-up service in case of extended poor weather.
June 10, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

JMS,

Thanks for the link to the oil and gas journal article . The three authors are all involved in oil shale and tar sand research. Of course they are all for it! I'll resist the temptation to send you to an environmental site for their propaganda!

As for 30+ years for alternatives. I respectfully say that's a bunch of hooey! You mention the infrastructure, that's being built right now to support the infamous corn ethanol. The end product of cellulosic ethanol is the same as corn ethanol without the food crop implications. Ethanol is ethanol and is stored, transported and pumped the same way regardless of source. Several forms of ethanol are in advanced R+D with some having moved into demonstration pilot plants.
June 10, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

P_Denver, As the proud owner of a 3kwh system I can tell you that, yes, you can sell the surplus back to Xcel. Since no energy is produced at night and less is produced in the winter, the surplus is repaid as a credit against your future use. My system supplies around 80% of the electricity we use in a year.

In not too many years, flexible solar panels will be in production that not only cost less but that can be incorporated in roofing tiles, be placed on walls, wrapped around poles or affixed to many places they cannot be today.
June 10, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

People may want to check out what an EX Colorado company ( which was just a stone's throw away from NREL ) had done..Our work on the TMF energy cell was offshored....and was a PERFECT solution for the hybrid car battery pack.....

http://www.boldertmf.com/

Bolder Technologies...I worked there and we created the SMALL, LIGHTWEIGHT energy storage solution for the KILLACYCLE and the Chrysler Prototype ESX hybrid.

http://www.ingeniumtechnology.com/tom...

http://www.killacycle.com/

So I have a bit more experience and call today's FEEL GOOD HYBRIDS no solution to the transportation problem. Our cells were ONLY Lead-Acid and easily recyclable. The exotic ones are not. Google Sudbury, Ontario, Canada and you will quickly know why.

I don't like the PIOUS and their ilk because you still have to carry a big chunk of iron around.
June 10, 2008

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

hybrids are crap

the future is 100% electric cars

the technology is already here

the problem?

very few parts and a very long life span means u could own one for the rest of your life

to drive 100 miles for less than a dollar

but the auto / petroleum crowd is too busy trying to nickel and dime you

electric cars wouldn't be profitable enough

THE ANSWER IS TO NEVER AGAIN BUY A NEW CAR

WE DO NOT SUPPORT GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLES, IT IS TIME TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE

too bad you have inbred redneck americans still buying SUVs in records #s, the same retards who cry about gas prices

DUMB DUMB DUMB

be a part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem

Wanna know why detroit auto makers are bleeding billions?

their GREED has caught up with them

for some more insight into 100% electric vehicles (and why thats not what u see most of on the roads these days) go to:

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
June 10, 2008

1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

"Because of that, I made a personal decision about 18 months ago, to support the US makers. "

= made in china

capitalism wins
June 10, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

JMS writes:

Greenleaf,

I am not disputing you but I am a realist.

I want ways to increase our domestic energy production and it's going to come from a variety of sources, including some sort of petroleum, until it becomes phased out.
June 10, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

JMS,

I agree totally as I am a realist as well, but frankly, it makes more sense getting it anywhere but oil shale which requires so much energy and water to exploit.
June 10, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

best way to lower gas prices?

increase the value of the dollar
June 10, 2008

2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

sfanderson58 writes:

I noticed a reference to producing oil from algae a while back. I did some calculations on how much space it would take to produce ALL of the petroleum the US uses per year. It would take approximately 1000 square miles or desert preferrably next to a coal burning power plant (the critters love CO2). It is not cost effective yet, but at $400,000 per acre per year income, someone will find a way to make it pay.
I also did some research on solar power plants. The ones with a single concentrator/boiler and many mirrors. This was almost cost effective when oil was $20.00 per barrel. This would also take a little more than 1000 square miles of desert to supply ALL of the US current power needs. It can be done and will be done some day.
June 10, 2008

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Greenleaf

If you want to see the flexible, mass-produced solar panels of TODAY, check out the Nano Solar company:

http://www.nanosolar.com/

Tomorrow is here.
June 10, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Nicktaste says ' = made in China' -

Not so buddy - I have a number of friends and family working for US auto makers in this country - many on actual engine-assembly and body/frame lines.

Now, about making the dollar worth more, how would you do it? Which part of the $46 trillion in debt would you pay off and how? Would you abolish the Federal Reserve Board and end up part of some sports stadium or shot in the back of the head? Perhaps you would declare all banks illegal and all debt null and void and start over? Face it, unless one entity owns everything in the world, they don't control enough of things to be able to dictate the use and management of resources.
June 10, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Boarder22 writes:

I think we should all be required to drive rechargeable golf carts. We can pimp them out with sub-woofers and crazy paint jobs like they do in Mazatlan. It would take 6 or 7 hours to get anywhere but it would save gas. And.....you can drive it straight onto the course for a round of golf. Driving deaths are down, gas is saved, and they are much better looking than those God-aweful Prius(es). Oh yeah, "nicktaste", I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Am I an inbred redneck? I guess you're the only civilized American here. I better work on my mullet.....
June 10, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Boarder22 writes:

billyboy: I thought this was about a dog driving a car also, how did he get 100 miles a gallon out of that car?
June 10, 2008

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

nicktaste
And where do we get all this electicity for all these cars? Can't use nuclear, not enough wind or sun power. Still have to burn fossil fuels.
June 10, 2008

4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

SirRealist

"“Now the new owners at Chrysler promise to rethink what it means to be a car company. Cerberus Capital Management, the Wall Street private-equity firm named for the three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell, has Motown rabid with speculation this week about the fallout from its $7.4 billion buyout of beleaguered Chrysler. A skilled and secretive turnaround outfit, Cerberus is expected to overhaul Chrysler in a way that could create a new model for Detroit, which badly needs a tuneup. Last year, GM, Ford and Chrysler combined to lose more than $16 billion, as the remnants of Henry Ford’s old model finally ran out of gas. Detroit insiders say they expect Cerberus to shake up the moribund American auto industry by asking this simple question: does a car company have to build all its own cars?

It could prove to be a transformative question. Rather than each Detroit automaker building every kind of car and truck – and losing their shirt on most of them – they could be design and brand houses that build only the things that make them money. After all, the thinking goes, customers only care about the product, the brand and the price. Why not focus on designing a car, marketing it and selling it, rather than manufacturing it?”

Cerberus will want to make Chrysler attractive so it can resell it in a few years at a big profit. There is no way to do that by continuing to manufacture in the United States. Despite some questions, the China deal is still on. Once the profits start rolling in, it is inevitable that all American automobile manufacturers will follow. The television industry disappeared in the United States with nary a whimper, and the automobile industry is sure to follow.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2007/05/...
June 10, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

Boarder22 writes: "", I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Am I an inbred redneck? "

hey if u have to ask...

but seriously this is not an attack on you personally

if you choose to use (buy) a vehicle that gets poor fuel economy,
dont't complain about the cost of fuel

I consider people who continue to purchase NEW SUVs as selfish,
if you want a used SUV, prices should be falling about now

All I am saying is don't make the problem worse

1 man can change the world. that man is you
June 10, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

"nicktaste
And where do we get all this electicity for all these cars? Can't use nuclear, not enough wind or sun power. Still have to burn fossil fuels."

we already use nuclear, wind, and sun power

but obviously most of it comes from coal

EVs have the unique advantage of using electricity generated from a variety of fuels and renewable resources. The overall mix of power plants in the U.S. is 55 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil (9). The other 32 percent include nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal.

Many EVs critics point out that charging thousands of EVs from aging coal plants will increase greenhouse gases such as CO2 significantly. Although half the country uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles. According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in the country from 17 to 22 percent.

Reductions in pollutants such as HCs, CO, NOx, SO2, and particulates vary according to a region's power plant mix. If EVs were introduced on a global scale, urban pollution would improve significantly. (See Table 1) In France, where most of the power comes from nuclear energy, emissions produced to charge EVs would be cut across the board. Countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. use a mix of coal- and oil-fired facilities that produce an elevated level of SO2 and particulates. However, levels of HC, CO and NOx would decrease significantly.

HCs CO NOx SO2 Particulates
France -99 -99 -91 -58 -59
Germany -98 -99 -66 +98 -96
Japan -99 -99 -66 -40 +10
U.K. -98 -99 -34 +407 +165
U.S. -96 -99 -67 +203 +122
California -96 -97 -75 -24 +15

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollm...

read, rednecks
June 10, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Now Nick, I see that's what someone wrote. And I don't necessarily disagree with some of it. Detroit, and indeed, ALL carmakers will have to rethink what it means to be a car company - no one will be exempt. But just because someone writes a blog entry, or a newspaper or mag article, doesn't mean they have seen, and are reporting on, an absolute vision of the future. Things will change in many areas, from energy to technology, that will impact everything.
June 10, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

The more efficient we make our vehicles, the higher the gas prices go. The oil co's are going to continue to raise prices as long as they can to make up for the difference.

In Europe they drive mini cars and the gas prices are through the roof.
June 10, 2008

5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sigmond writes:

Gas prices in Europe are in (and have been in) the 10.00 a gallon range. I have installed a mast and sail on the roof of my Benz to take advantage of wind power.
June 10, 2008

5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

nicktaste writes:

chinese slave labor, its whats for dinner

anybody remember when wal-mart used to have "sam's american choice"?

ah the good ol days

now its "wang's chinese choice"

take ur a55 to a walmart now and you will be surprised how few american products they carry in comparison with the imported "made in china" or "made in taiwan"

Im just glad I dont live in china, im sure they would have no problem executing me there for calling them out

we can only hope the us doesn't continue to become more like china

and for the record fascist communism and socialism are polar opposites
June 10, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

johnson writes:

Glad to see I wasn't the only one hoping for a dog and car story.
June 10, 2008

6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

frgough writes:

greenleaf,

It is not my opinion. It is distillation from numerous comments on this post, all various forms of: Drive smaller cars, bike more, walk more, move closer to your work; all of which are different ways of saying: Live the way we tell you to.

Internal combustion engines run about 35% efficiency. Li-ion/electric motors are about 70% efficient. Waste included, gasoline still gives you 38 times the energy per unit mass. Gasoline is a tremendously efficient fuel supply for transportation.

Instead of trying to replace it, we should be trying to find ways to create more. The chemistry behind gasoline is fairly simple. Instead of spending energy to recharge batteries, use it to create gasoline.

I notice that you didn't comment on nuclear versus solar. The energy difference there is so staggering as to be laughable. Anyone who considers solar power to be any sort of solution to the energy needs of an industrial society is deluding themselves.

We have enough known reserves of Uranium and Thorium to power the world at current U.S. levels for a million years. It's pure stupidity we aren't using it.
June 10, 2008

7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

frgough,

I didn't respond to the nuclear part of your posting more because it wasn't part of the original article than any other consideration. We are using nuclear and we probably should use more of it. Like windmills, though, nobody wants them in their backyard. I'm sure that could be overcome. How do you propose controlling, transporting, storing and protecting spent fuel that remains dangerous for thousands of years and would be the weapon of choice for many in the world who hate our guts?

As to your initial complaint that all of us who express an opinion differing from yours are automatically telling you how you have to live. I think that's quite a stretch of logic. You are apparently telling us we shouldn't express an opinion different than yours! But wait, that would be telling us how to live wouldn't it and you wouldn't do that! You are employing circular reasoning and that is your opinion.

As for gasoline, you have to work at getting it, it is environmentally destructive. Wars are fought over it and many of us believe it contributes to global warming. I like the sun: it delivers itself over 300 days per year, I can capture it myself(and do!) and that "pump" will keep supplying me for another 30 years! I will be one of the first to buy a 100mpg plug-in hybrid. You can keep driving your low mpg, high energy machine as long as you can afford to, its your right.
June 10, 2008

7:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Holy cow Nick, you're right - America s*cks big time - if I were you, I'd move over to China and help them revolt against us. Then they can go back to the good old days of prosperity, and give back the gains in standard of living, and such. Those new houses, clean clothes, and other things that improve their lives are sure to be given back willingly, along with their dietary and medical improvements.

You know, sometimes buddy it just gets old hearing about what a miserable bunch of non-contributing, over-consuming, society-abusing bastards we are.
June 10, 2008

8:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

sysop writes:

Big deal, they are acting like this is a big deal, and probably cost the taxpayer billions, when a couple of regular joes made a car that gets over 300mpg

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/06/05/washburn.230.mpg.car.kfmb

Check out these videos too about ALGAE DIESEL you can do in your backyard !!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L_tGkvec8ww
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EnOSnJJSP5c
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i82CXQX4yq4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0

via ALGAE, in a backyard pond, you can produce diesel fuel....
This just shows how badly our leadership has failed us...
It took individuals to come up with this technology which was ALWAYS possible...
It staggers the imagination how much time, lives, and money has been wasted under the rule of know-nothing posers...
Entire Universities, with huge budgets could not figure this out...
So many followers, so few true leaders.
Everyone waiting around for someone else to take the initiative and think creatively...

http://TeamInfinity.com/algae.shtml and http://RoboEco.com/getReal
June 10, 2008

8:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

Frgough: “Anyone who considers solar power to be any sort of solution to the energy needs of an industrial society is deluding themselves.”

Really?

Why is it that so many Americans are so closed minded? You do know that a lot more exists outside our boarders. There just happens to be other people, other countries and, yes, other industrialized nations. Some of these folks are doing things that many like you claim cannot be done. How many foreign companies are setting-up shop in the U.S. today? A lot of these companies are involved in environmentally responsible business.

We’re getting left in the dust…

http://www.solarpanelsdot.com/news/sp...

The first plant was so successful, they are nearing completion on the second plant. Oh yeah, the sun does set, right? Then what? The second plant will utilize molten salt to retain heat at night. The current plant already has provisions for cloudy days.

Resist all you like, but the largest companies on the planet are actively investing in these “Second Generation” projects. It’s too bad the vast majority of that money goes to other countries.

http://www.cleantech.com

Free market, indeed!
June 10, 2008

8:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Harley2002 writes:

OK

1. Just checked on the web the US uses 20 million barrels of oil a day. Yeah we can use windmills, Solar power and switch grass to replace this. Right! It is plain stupid to believe this. Maybe we can develop a technology over 20 or 30 years to do it but now you who believe this live in another reality. We need to drill for oil build nuke plants and refineries and at the same time put our full effort into developing alternative energy.

2. Man made global warming all I can say is Brahahahahah. Hey when you can show me science "fact" not "consensus" I will believe it, Consensus has no place in "science". It is just another way the leftist Marxists want to take over our lives and take "our" hard earned money. And as a fact the warmest decade was the 30's not the 90's there were not that many cars then Hummmm. So why so hot? And why did it cool off? Climates change all the time but it happens over time that exceeds our puny lifespans. But what the heck enviromentalism is the lefts religion.

3. Prius got one hate it it's a chick car. But I commute 100 miles a day and have to say it saves me money. By the way I was getting between 46 to 47 miles a gallon on real gas. Since they forced the 10% corn crap on us the mileage dropped to 42 to 43. So I am now burning more fuel how does that save on consumption?

So all you touchy feely eniviros go buy your windmills and solar panels hamsters on there exercise wheel and feel you are doing something that makes a difference. Your "NOT" this country runs on oil and will be for some time to come.
June 10, 2008

8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

rdamurphy writes:

Lesssee, $29K for the Prius, another $10K for the electrical gear on the roof, and, oh, yes, the Birkenstocks to drive to work in! How does that work for a family making minimum wage working two jobs? Marie Antoinnette must have been the first Liberal, and they're still using the same line: "Let 'em eat cake!"

Robert
June 10, 2008

10:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

boyder writes:

Wow, its engine can use 85% ethanol, great!! Lets start burning more of the rain forest so we can get that corn planted so we can save the planet!!!! Oh, by the way, good luck mass producing solar panels on a large scale, a solar panel factory is not half as safe as an asbestos factory!
June 10, 2008

10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

boyder writes:

greenleaf wrote:
"How do you propose controlling, transporting, storing and protecting spent fuel that remains dangerous for thousands of years and would be the weapon of choice for many in the world who hate our guts?"

Greenleaf, used nuclear fuel in Europe is recycled and reused in nuclear plants till it only has a half life of 20 to 50 years. The only reason we don't do it in the US is because a law was passed under Jimmy Carter that makes it illegal for us now to recycle nuclear fuel after one cycle because they thought it would be too dangerous at the time. Goes to show that the term 'progressive' doesn't always stand for progress.
June 11, 2008

6:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

fm writes:

Oil crises fixed
if we bring back the. . .

Flintstone's Flintmobile & Rubble Roadster!
June 11, 2008

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Robert,

Early models of everything come at a price that puts them out of reach of many people initially. Such concepts as automatic transmissions, power steering, brakes, windows and door locks were once pricey options. High gas mileage concepts are no different. Early adopters pay the freight for those who purchase later. Theoretically, each purchase improves the economies of mass on the production line. Eventually, even the most expensive high mileage cars will become commonplace and mainstream.
June 11, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

boyder,

I was unaware of this, but will have to explore it further . As you know, that has traditionally been a sticking point to new nuclear development in this country. Assuming this is the case I would be even more willing to support expanded development of that resource over more coal plants.

I wonder though, why would a former nuclear engineer (Carter) promote such a concept?
June 11, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

OK, let us think out of the box.

Let start to solve two problems in one. More water and more ethenol for cars to burn.

How?? First to have more water available..90% of the trees along our rivers need to be cut down. Yes you heard me, cut them down. While harvesting these trees..use the pulp to make ethenol.

Then use the leftover pulp for fuel to burn in electric plants or fuel pellets to be used in stoves for heating.

Let the screaming begin by the tree lovers.....!!

But in reality..trees did not line the rivers going out of Colorado.
If you do not believe me..look at pictures taken in the 1800's of the South Platte river.

It does not matter if you agree about the trees or not. We need more water. Cutting the trees will increase water in the rivers immensely. Then use the trees and water for everyone's benefit.

Nuff Said!
June 11, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Motionguru2 writes:

A few additional tidbits that make sense. An electric drive system is vastly more efficent than the very best internal combustion setup ever could be. An electric motor is capable of up to 5 times its rated HP for short stints (ie acceleration) the average vehicle (CAR) made in the 80,s used only 3 hp to maintain 55 mph. The actual energy needed to drive an electric car is much less than the amount a fossil fuel vehicle uses. The economies of scale will make this affordable in the future. The near future. And the fuel to make all of that electical energy falls on us every day. we have just not spent the time or the money to develop it sooner because of cheap oil. Yes, americans are lazy and do not want to be bothered by any of this but now that we are being affected directly in our wallets we are inventing and finding ways to regain our energy independence. This inventive spirit is not found in abundance in many other places in this world. I know we will solve our own problems and by extension we will solve the problems for all of mankind. This is what makes me proud to be called American.
June 11, 2008

9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

One last thing.

The vehicle in the article did not achieve 100 mpg. It ran 60 miles on the battery and 40 miles on the gallon of gas. That equals to 40 mpg.

I have a 36 Chevrolet that seats 5 adults and you can drive it 75 mph and obtain 35+mpg with the AC on!

Nuff Said!
June 11, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

So, Gary - let me ask a question or two of you.

1) Because there were no trees along the Platte in the 1800's, is there something wrong with them being there now? Your house wasn't there in the 1800's either, so I think we ought to tear it down too.

2) Do you realize that if global warming due to CO2 buildup is valid, trees that take CO2 and metabolize it into oxygen that you and I breathe helps with the problem?

2) What is the concern on your part about water? Yes, we need good reserves of it. But we let hundreds of thousands of acre feet of it flow out our rivers into other states such as Nevada (so they can run those ridiculously wasteful fountains) and California (so they can water their lawns and wash their cars with clean water running down the streets), and we refuse to build reservoirs to save any of it. Not only would we gain water and sporting recreation areas and parks, we would ensure our survival in this semi-arid state.

3) According to government data, North America is about 50 to 60% more heavily forested now than when Columbus landed here (some due to natural growth, and some due to reforestation requirements put on lumber harvesting companies), so should we cut all those water hogs down too?

Just wondering.
June 11, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

1.Yes there is something wrong with the trees now. The trees along the rivers...use lots of water. Too much of it!

Your solution SirRealist is...
Your house wasn't there in the 1800's either, so I think we ought to tear it down too. (guess that would include yours too right?)

2. No it has not been proven beyond a resonable doubt that global warming is caused by CO2 build up and that man has caused it or can cause it to change!

2.) Gee, what is my concern about water. How about there is currently not enough to go around! Why are hundreds of wells shut down in Colorado and farmers not producing crops. Hey do growing crops that you can eat use the same CO2 that your trees do?
As far as "letting hundred of thousands acre feet run out of our state...it is called water right laws and they have rights to it. My plan of cutting down the water gulping trees...allows more water in the rivers. This gives us more water to use after we fullfill the water rights of others. It takes water to fill your
reservoirs! Where do you plan on getting it?

3. You just proved my point...

According to government data, North America is about 50 to 60% more heavily forested now than when Columbus landed here (some due to natural growth, and some due to reforestation requirements put on lumber harvesting companies.)

We have 50 to 60% more trees now. Using all that water! We do not have 50 to 60% less CO2 because of the trees do we?

No we do not cut all of them down too. We should manage them. By the way, I stated cut 90% of them down along the rivers. Not all of them...can you read?

Then there are the tree lovers....let the forests burn thousands of acres every year...spend millions fighting forest fires...

Why not harvest and control the forest with proper management?

Just wondering...SirRealist

How about some "action" that will do something.

No? Let's wait until we have too much demand and not enough water right?

Nuff Said!
June 11, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

Google Answers: water consumption by treesApr 18, 2006 ... http://www.melnor.com/wateringguide/ "Mature trees can consume up to 15 gallons of water per hour on a hot day. ...
answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=720450 - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

15 gallons per hour on a hot day...per hundreds of thousands of trees along the rivers going out of our state. How many thousands of acre feet of water is that? How many reservoirs could we fill up and recharge the ground water for our irrigation wells?

Do some research SirRealist

Nuff Said!
June 11, 2008

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

Hmmm, This is just a puff piece and the interview more of the same.

That is why the rest of the global community is eating our lunch in the RESULTS department.

WE DID THIS STUFF OVER TEN YEARS AGO!!. Too bad that the company and technology got moved to ASIA..

So this ENGINEER and NREL are going to reinvent the wheel...

I think that NREL has become another haven for chair-warmers.

This LAB has done NOTHING I CAN'T DO ALREADY!!! STANFORD already uses this type of technology EVERY DAY to run the place!
June 11, 2008

12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Gary, wake up and pay attention, or I won't waste my time replying to your rants. In order, here is my response:

1) No, it wouldn't include my house because I'm not the one lobbying for the trees to go - you are - understand the difference?

2) You reply as though you think I believe in global warming. Go back and re-read and you just might see where I said "... if global warming due to CO2 buildup is valid..." - see that word "IF"? I didn't state either pro or con - you did - understand the difference?

3) Why did you not understand that I was stating a preference for reservoirs? I'm originally from Arizona, and they have the vision to have lakes and reservoirs all over the place - my belief is that we should too. So I didn't "prove your point" - I simply stated reserves of water are good things, and the trees along the Platte don't have to suffer the consequences you would impose. Understand the difference?

4) 50 to 60% less CO2 during the same time? Are you serious? How many people were on the planet in 1492? How many cars? Not even 400 million. Now there are more than six BILLION. Understand the difference?

5) 90% cut down, but not all? Again, are you serious? You don't see that 90% is much closer to 100% than none is to 0%? Understand the difference?

6) Your dislike of the "tree lovers" sticks out like a turd in a punchbowl. What did they ever do to you? So your big plan includes cutting the forests down to prevent forest fires??? Again, are you serious? Do you have any idea of the manpower required to glean the forests would take? And the fuel? I can't believe I'm wasting my time on you.

7) You seem to think I was proposing we "do nothing" until we're out of water, and I did nothing of the sort - again, go back and re-read before you put fingers to keyboard. You totally missed the points of my questions.

8) Do some research? Really? You think most people don't know that trees consume a lot of water? Well, maybe they don't, but I do. How much of the water are you going to stop from going down the river to other states? Let's keep our own water first, and then we can talk about cutting down the trees, huh?

9) Your use of "Nuff said" is silly, egotistical, arrogant, and obnoxious - as though what you say is the "final word" on a subject. Nice "discussion" tactic - sort of a "trust me ... I'm the expert here ... you know nothing ... so believe my words only".

Now, before putting your poison fingers on the keyboard, go back and RE-READ my original post to your original post, WITHOUT assuming that I'm disagreeing with you.
June 11, 2008

12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

SirRealist..

So...where do you want to get the water to fill reservoirs?
Your answer please!

No, I do not propose...clear cutting the forests in the mountains..only managing them. You can harvest the forest and use the resources of it and benefit everyone. Look at Europe..they have been managing their forests for hundreds of years. yes, using them. How about harvesting and making some fire breaks so forest fires do not run amok and out of control?

I have lived in Arizona also....

Where do you think the water comes from that fills Arizona's reservoirs...answer please!!

We can not keep our water first as you proclaim...we have to abide by the water rights of others...say like Arizona's !!

So you need to research water rights SirRealist.
If you are a realist...then cutting down trees along the Platte River to provide the needed water for us should be OK with you.

Plus the pulp can be made into ethenol, which takes water to make also.

Nuff Said!
June 11, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

SirRealist writes:

Have fun pissing people off until nobody will talk with you, as you have now done with me. Nuff said - christ.
June 11, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

Good answer to the questions
Since you can not answer them!

...my suggestion to you SirRealist..

is....Get Real!

Nuff Said..
June 11, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

fm writes:

Can you guys just have a water-balloon fight instead?
June 11, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

scrabbler writes:

I got my money on Sir Realist.

Nuff Said... =D
June 11, 2008

7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

SteveC writes:

Wow, they both tend to make valid points but are so angry with each other that they can't seem to listen to reason and have a reasonable argument. Which one of you is the Democrat and which is the Republican?
June 12, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Motionguru2
You make good points. One misconception I believe most people have is that an electric vehicle isn't capable of the performance of a gas car. Not true at all. An electric motor produces max torque at 0 RPM. Which means an electric car is capable of out accelerating a gas car by a large margin. But not for a very long distance. The problem with electric cars is storage and grid capacity. Especially grid capacity. Yes, you can make electricity from sunlight. Have you priced a 100 Megawatt PV installation lately? Photovoltaic can't compete with coal without a huge government subsidy like they do in Germany. With prevailing political attitudes in the USA you're never going to sell solar.
June 12, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

1. Who is angry?
2. Everyone has the right to thier own opinion.
3. I am neither a Demo or Repub...
4. I am a GDI..God Damn Independent.
5. It appears SirRealist does not want to answer questions, but wants others to answers his.

Nuff Said!
June 13, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ex_MislTech writes:

For the ppl that say the Electric car isn't coming they
just made a 10 times jump in battery storage.

They are also working on Hybrid Battery Super Capacitors
that exceed current power storage levels.

Several technologies in this area are making large
jumps forward due to nanotech.

http://www.physorg.com/news117212815....

Home › Business › Energy

Lab drives car to 100 mpg

NREL makes tailpipe dream a reality with battery-boosted Prius

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 9, 2008 at 9:06 p.m.Updated June 10, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.

Related Links

More Energy

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published June 9, 2008 at 9:06 p.m.
Updated June 10, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.