| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2007/6/14-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46938 Activity:high |
6/13 Guess what liberal urbanists-- automobile is not going away! Boohoo!
Go ahead and cry you cry babies:
http://www.ti.org/vaupdate56.html
\_ the author clearly doesn't understand the concept of peak oil. -tom
\_ tom clearly didn't read #1 carefully. We've already tapped
and used up 1 out of 6-7 units of estimated oil on earth.
It may be true that the rest is expensive to extract but as
technology improves they'll be cheaper to extract again.
This explains why even though as oil gets harder and harder
to extract, our production is still keeping up with demand,
and the price/barrel of oil hasn't yet gone up the roof.
\_ http://www.ioga.com/PDF_Files/98%20to%20July%2006.pdf
\_ http://swivel.com/graphs/show/1000024
What do you call that?
\_ Look, I don't know when peak oil is going to happen. It
might have already happened, it might be five years away,
it might be 15. But it's not a whole lot more than that.
If you compare the marginal cost of extracting oil from
a 1950 Texas oil field (drill a hole and get a bucket),
with the cost and time required to build up infrastructure
to, for example, extract oil from the Candian oil sands,
it should be obvious how large the problem facing us is.
Technology is never going to make it as easy to get oil
from rocks as it is to get it from a well. Demand will
keep going up, and production will plateau. Then what?
The invisible hand won't solve this one for you, any more
than it solved the tree shortage problem on Easter Island.
-tom
\_ If history taught us anything, it's that making 'never'
predictions that don't actually follow from laws of
physics is stupid.
\_ Does it count as a law of physics that you can burn
oil but you can't burn sand? -tom
\_ You can't burn water either, but that doesn't
affect the viability of hydroelectric power.
\_ It does affect the viability of hydroelectric
power for use in passenger automobiles. -tom
\_ Are you saying shale oil is somehow magically
different and can't be used in cars? WTF!
\_ Uh, no, try to keep up. Water can't be
used in cars. Shale oil can be used, but
when you look at it on a BTU/kilo basis,
it's really not close to competitive with
well oil. -tom
\_ So when you said "you can burn oil but
can't burn sand" you were just being
dumb? Check.
\_ Uh, no, you still aren't getting it.
Well oil is *very easy to turn into
a fuel*. You can light it with a
match. Sand/rock infused with oil
*is not very easy to turn into a
fuel*. You need huge energy-intensive
operations to extract the usable
fuel source. The best technology
can hope to do is get the net energy
difference within an order of
magnitude. -tom
\_ the author's argument around point #2 that there *is* a
substitute for oil is very weak. nuclear is no substitute as
a vehicle fuel.
\_ Electric vehicles.
\_ Cars maybe, but theres the whole issue of switching the
infrastructure over, as well as battery life and vehicle
range.
But what about about planes? Without oil, commercial
aviation is dead.
\_ you forgot to mention plastics
\_ Blimps!
\_ I'm Blip Guy #1 Fan! You rock, Blimp Guy!
\_ You don't need that much additional infrastructure to
charge the vehicle in your garage with 110V or 240V
overnight, which is what most people will do. We do
need some new "electric stations", but they won't be as
needed as gas stations where everyone must go now.
\_ It is pretty funny that this article is only two years old and
most of its predictions are already wrong. Gasoline prices have
gone through the roof, people are driving less and the cites
are booming. The only one he might end up being right on is
the idea that there are good substitutes for gasoline: the
jury is still out on that one.
\_ We have nowhere near enough power for everyone to
plug in their electric car at home; and how do you
deal with long trips?
\_ Above already said we'd need a few stations, just
not nearly as many as now for those long trips.
\_ yes, and how would it work? You drive 100
miles, and then plug in and sit there for
two hours while your battery charges?
\_ That's where plug-in hybrid comes to play.
http://www.edrivesystems.com
\_ which requires gas.
\_ For daily commute, no it uses energy
from the electric grid. For the
occasional long trips or when you
forgot to plug-in, yes it uses energy
from gasoline.
\_ the electric grid requires gas.
\_ Check out point #2 in
http://www.edrivesystems.com/faq.html
\_ California's "clean electric
system" is predominantly
natural gas.
\_ Depends on which year
you're looking at:
http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2007/mar.html
http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2007/may.html
Anyway, natural gas is
even cleaner than coal,
which further makes the
faq's point.
\_ and further misses the
point that a plug-in
hybrid is dependent
on cheap oil.
\_ ???
\_ What? As I pointed
out a few posts
above, it depends on
oil only during the
occasional long
trips or when you
forget to plug-in.
It's not a complete
solution. Nobody
said it's a silver
bullet.
\_ That's why I said charging them overnight, when
the electricity demand is low currently.
\_ it wouldn't be low anymore if everyone were
charging their cars.
\_ Then good, higher percentage of the grid's
capacity will be utilized around the clock
instead of only during daytime.
\_ try the calculation.
\_ What calculation do you need to show
that higher usage will utilize more
capacity? Or do you think that higher
\_ What kind of calculation do you need
to demonstrate that higher usage will
utilize more capacity? Or do you have
some calculation to show that higher
usage will utilize less capacity?
\_ calculate the capacity required
to charge everyone's car at the
same time.
\_ Thanks to http://csua.com, here's what
I posted last October:
(http://csua.com/?entry=44738
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv quote vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
\_ Here's the math. Say during one full day's driving,
your car needs to output the equivalent of 200hp lasting
10min (very unlikely) and not re-capturing any of this
via re-generative brakes. That's 33.3hp-hr. Say you
charge your car between 10pm-8am. Then the charger
needs to provide power at 3.33hp. That's 2485.7W,
which is about the same as two hair driers. Of course,
since neither charging nor motor-driving are 100%
efficient, in reality you need more than two hair
driers' power to provide 200hp-10min's of driving.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ /quote ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also see the wind energy post
from someone else in the same
thread.
See also the wind energy post by
someone else in the same thread.
\_ Wow, you are so afraid of honest debate that you just deleted my
message? I guess I will repost it, though if you are going to be
that childish, why not just post it on a read only blog?
I said that three of his four points have already been shown
to be wrong, even in the short two years since he posted this.
Oil prices have continued to rise, driving is down and the
cities are booming. The only one of his predictions that has
even a chance of coming true is the one about alternative
replacements for gasoline and the jury is still out on that one.
\_ I didn't delete your post, someone else did. Your silly
cost/barrel chart proves that the cost/barrel goes up, but
we all know that the cost/barrel has little correlation with
the cost/@the pump. Only time will tell who is right, but
throughout the history of mankind almost all apocalyptic
predictions (including the ones from Kunstler) have been
proven to be wrong. The market will self adjust, it always
does. Sorry but you urbanites are too dense to realize this.
\_ Sure, it will adjust and those that bet on the continuation
of cheap oil will go through a painful re-adjustment period.
\_ What does "the market will self-adjust" mean? When the
Norse colony in Greenland died out, that could be construed
as "the market" adjusting to poor resource usage. That's
great for the market. It wasn't so great for the Norse in
Greenland who starved to death. -tom
\_ It's curious you use the example of the Norse Greenland
colonies since such colonies were never economically
self-sufficient, had little economic reason to exist,
and certainly were not established for 'market reasons.'
\_ How is any of that relevant? The U.S. wasn't
established for market reasons and isn't economically
self-sufficient. The free market doesn't guarantee
the continued existence of the U.S., or continued
existence of U.S. culture, or the continued existence
of the people anywhere who rely on cheap fossil fuels.
The world won't end because of peak oil, but it is
entirely possible that societies, including ours,
could collapse as a result of it. -tom
\_ The US wasn't established for market reasons?
I bet to differ. It is the main reason it was
I beg to differ. It is the main reason it was
established. As for society, it existed before
oil and it will exist in some form after oil.
\_ Yes, it will. The only question is how much
pain it will take to get to the "after oil"
state. The more quickly we move now, the
less pain there will be. If we keep going ahead
with the assumption that technology will save
us, it will be extremely painful. -tom
\_ I ll tell you what tom. Are you willing to make
a concrete enough prediction about peak oil and
our society that you will be willing to put money on
it? Put it here on the motd, and if we truly disagree
about odds of collapse, one of us will eventually
make some money off this. If you can't make things
concrete enough for a bet it's just vague
it? Put it here on the motd, and if we truly
disagree about odds of collapse, one of us will
eventually make some money off this. If you can't
make things concrete enough for a bet it's just vague
doommongering. -- ilyas
\_ I see nothing wrong with vague doom mongering.
It can be kinda fun and sometimes someone posts
a link with interesting info. Everything doesn't
have to be a bet.
\_ I bet that nominal gasoline prices will double
in the next five years. Put $20 on it? -ausman
\_ I bet they won't. Here's $20 that says gas
will not be $8/gallon in 2012. --dim
\_ Average gasoline price in the US is $3.076
accoring to the DOE:
http://http://www.csua.org/u/h0a
So doubling would be $6.15. Still up for it?
-ausman
\_ It's $3.50 where I am. So how about
$7.00? I don't know the market in BFE.
\_ Nope. I am being very generous as
it is. -ausman
\_ is that an inflation adjusted doubling? If
not we'll see gas go up by nearly that
amount just due to inflation. sucker bet.
\_ you think prices nearly double in five
years based on inflation? What do you
think the inflation rate is?
\_ Dear ausman, if you are willing to put in
another $20, I ll take that bet along with
dim. -- ilyas
\_ $20 on $6.15/gallon according to DOE on
6/15/2012 it is. -ausman
\_ I'm already betting on peak oil; I have
investments in solar (on my house as well as
money in solar companies), and I'm moving money
to countries which are less oil-dependent (such
as Brazil). And I'm already making money off
it, thanks. -tom
\_ Funny, I am betting on peak oil by putting
money in the Oil Majors, who hold lots of
oil reserves, the value of I expect to
oil reserves, the value of which I expect to
soar.
\_ How about this, ilyas, why don't you
short oil futures for your side of the
bet. -tom
\_ pp wasn't me. For future reference
any thread where I sign my name, I will
consistently sign my name. -- ilyas
\_ fine. Now are you shorting oil
futures? -tom
\_ I don't think shorting oil futures
would be a wise move. Perhaps
you misunderstood the point of
my proposal. Making a bettable
prediction makes very crisp and
clear the exact nature of our
disagreement. We may both agree
oil is going to get more expensive,
but we may disagree about the
magnitude, etc. I don't just
mean 'put your money behind
energy sources you believe in,' but
'put your money behind specific
testable claims about peak oil
you are making.' If you aren't
willing to put money behind
a concrete claim, you aren't
really making any claims. -- ilyas
really making any claims. ausman's
bet is a good example of the
kind of thing I am talking about.
-- ilyas
\_ I'm not making claims, other
than that peak oil is a real
phenomenon and it will greatly
impact the U.S. at some point.
I don't have enough detailed
information to say whether
that's now or 20 years from
now. I wouldn't be willing
to get on ausman's side of the
above bet.
But I am confident enough in
the general trend to invest
significant personal finances
based on my understanding of
the issues. I guess you
think a silly MOTD bet would
be more meaningful. Whatever.
-tom
\_ The author does the usual sloppy job of trying to "debunk" peak
oil with stupid statements about known reserves in 1920, and
ignoring facts like how oil production in the USA has been declining
for 35 years straight now, even with vastly improved extraction
and exploration technology. Again, the problem is not "running
out of oil". There may still in fact be 7 trillion or 100 trillion
or 100 quadrillion barrels of recoverable oil on the planet. The
problem is that we can't pump it up quickly or producing it is a net
energy loser. The end result is less net energy available for our
growing economy. A simple analogy would be trying to get rich by
stealing gold from Fort Knox 1 gram at a time. Even though there
might be billions of dollars sitting in the vault, you'll never get
rich this way. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.ti.org/vaupdate56.html Vanishing Automobile update #56 Does "Peak Oil" Spell Death for the Suburbs? Based on this theory, the New Urbanists advocate more government regulation of land use and lifestyles and diversion of more highway revenues to rail transit. The peak-oil argument, however, critically depends on four strong assumptions: 1 We are running out of oil 2 There are no substitutes for oil 3 Higher prices will lead people to drive less 4 Less driving will force people to return to the cities If any one of these assumptions is wrong, Kunstler's argument falls apart. This paper shows that all four assumptions are questionable. Government policies based on a presumption of peak oil are likely to do far more harm than good to our cities and our economy. Demand in China and other Asian nations is rapidly rising, yet total oil production will soon peak and then decline. As a result, today's high oil prices, driven by Katrina and Rita, are only a harbinger of even higher prices to come. Such high prices mean an end to life as we know it -- life in the suburbs with automobiles, Wal-Marts, and other modern conveniences. Those, at least, are the claims of the peak-oil theorists. Some proponents of peak oil may actually be petroleum geologists who have some idea what they are talking about. But many are simply people who hate suburbs and automobiles and are gleeful at the thought that they will soon go away. "Forget Wal-Mart and another $286 billion to pave over good land. Of course, if what they say is true, we should stop building any more low-density suburbs or highways and instead build New Urban communities and rail transit. The peak-oil theory thereby helps politicians justify intrusive land-use regulations and wasteful transportation projects. Leading the charge is James Howard Kunstler, author of The Geography of Nowhere (which argued that suburbs were "trashy and preposterous"), Home from Nowhere (which advocated New Urbanism as a replacement for traditional suburbs), and now The Long Emergency." Rolling Stone, Kunstler's latest book argues that oil prices are rising to catastrophic levels, and that we will only be saved by building "walkable, human-scale towns." As evidenced by his earlier books, he simply considers suburbs abominable. If peak oil means an end to the suburbs, then he is all for it. This attitude blinds him to a realistic assessment of his argument. Broken down, Kunstler's conclusions depend on four very different hypotheses: 1 We are rapidly running out of oil and fuel prices will soon become unaffordable for ordinary auto drivers. If any one of these four hypotheses are wrong, then Kunstler's argument gets thrown completely out the window. All four must be true for there to be any support at all for government regulations or subsidies that favor New Urbanism over low-density suburbs or the diversion of highway funds to rail transit. In 1920, the United States Geological Survey officially estimated that the US had just 67 billion barrels of oil left, including undiscovered oil fields. The USGS's 1920 estimate was off by a mere 2900 percent. People have long feared we are about to run out of oil, but their predictions have all proven false. Given that there is a fixed amount of oil in the world, someday we will doubtless see prices increase due to disappearing supplies. But that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't happen for at least thirty to a hundred years. Virtually all fluctuations in gasoline prices to date have been due to political events and natural disasters, not to actual shortages of oil in the ground. long track record of underestimating future oil production from known reserves. Plus there are still parts of the globe that have not yet been fully explored. Thus, the thirty-year time horizon for cheap oil is also conservative; while demand is increasing, known reserves of such cheap oil are also increasing. Other parts of the world are supposed to have another trillion or so barrels of oil shales. Taken together, these "unconventional" oil reserves add up to more than 65 trillion barrels -- enough, if they can be extracted, to last more than forty years even in the unlikely event that everyone in the world increases their oil consumption to US levels of about 24 barrels per person per year. "More expensive to refine or extract" does not necessarily mean significantly higher prices at the pump. Typically, people go after the cheapest sources of a raw material first, then move on to the more expensive sources. But when they start on the more expensive sources, they usually quickly develop techniques of extracting and using the resource much more cheaply. As long as cheap Saudi Arabia oil is available, there is little incentive to find ways to cheaply refine heavy oil or extract oil from tar sands or shales. But when the incentive arrives, expect the costs of refining and extraction to drop. For example, US production of iron once centered on the Great Lakes region, where high-grade ores were mined from about 1870 through 1950. peaked in 1969, and 1969 pig iron prices were no greater than in 1900, 1910, or 1920, when top quality ores were still being mined (Historical Statistics of the US, series M218). Since then, US steel production has fallen by nearly a third, and someone could easily write a "long emergency" book about "peak iron." price of steel today is considerably lower than it was in 1969. This is because raw materials make up only part of the costs of production. As resource prices rise, producers can respond by making other production costs more efficient. Similarly, while the costs of extracting oil may rise -- though to nowhere near the levels projected by Kunstler -- the cost of gasoline and other refined products may not appreciably increase at all. In short, there is no clear proof that any shortage-induced price increases will happen soon. For the next 30 years, at least, oil prices will depend more on political events and natural disasters than on natural supplies or extraction costs. After that time, extraction costs may rise, but those costs may not lead to significantly higher fuel prices for many decades. While it seems intuitive that the world's oil supply is ultimately limited, it is not so obvious that there are no substitutes for oil. Yet Kunstler has to take this as a given, because if there are substitutes his entire argument falls apart. "No combination of alternative fuels will allow us to run American life the way we have been used to running it," he asserts. It doesn't take a genius to think of several counter examples. Along with efficiency gains in other industries, this could nearly double our effective oil reserves. In 1983, Americans drove 26 percent more miles than in 1973, yet used only 5 percent more fuel. Between 1973 and 1991, the fuel efficiency of the average American car increased by 42 percent. Since then, cheap oil has given people no incentives to buy more fuel-efficient cars, so fuel economy has remained constant. But that will change if fuel prices remain permanently high. China is building dozens of nuclear power plants using new technologies that are supposed to be far safer than any used in the US Kunstler dismisses this possibility by saying Americans won't accept nuclear power. But rather than totally give up on the automotive lifestyle, Americans may be quite willing to accept safe nuclear technologies, especially if rival countries use them to gain economic power. The US has a huge supply of coal, and coal gasification can keep the automobiles rolling albeit while producing greenhouse gases. The idea of turning corn into ethanol is mainly a subsidy to Archer Daniels Midland and corn farmers, and probably requires more oil than it saves. While I suspect hybrid cars will be the short-term response, I can't begin to guess what technology will ultimately replace oil, and neither can anyone else. We may not even find out within our lifetimes if oil turns out to be plentiful for the next century. It would be absurdly expensive for the government to promote one technology over others (as it currently is doing by subsidizing ethanol, among other things). Worse, governmen... |
| swivel.com/graphs/show/1000024 US Midgrade All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon) vs. US Midgrade All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon) vs. |
| www.edrivesystems.com All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. |
| www.edrivesystems.com/faq.html Questions posted to the listserv will be answered there and may eventually show up on future versions of this FAQ Disclaimer: Specifications of the commercial EDrive system for the 2004 and later model year Prius are subject to change without notice. The questions and answers in the FAQ do not constitute a specification for the EDrive system. Plug-in hybrids offer the best chance of transitioning away from fossil fuels towards a renewably powered transportation future. Full sized electric vehicles suffer from limited range and may require up to 3 times the battery capacity of an EDrive equipped plug-in hybrid and still not be capable of satisfying 100% of a person's driving needs. At present, hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles suffer from astronomical cost (over $500,000), limited range (80-180 miles), low efficiency (compared to batteries) and most notably a lack of economically priced and widely available fuel. Plug-in hybrids however can be built today and provide a no-compromises solution that moves us away from fossil fuels. While none of these solutions (including plug-in hybrids) can stand alone on an economic basis today, with rising fuel costs, improved battery performance and reduced battery cost, plug-in hybrids offer the best hope of becoming economically viable within the next five years. EDrive Systems LLC aims to prove the concept for those early adopters willing to show the world that vehicles can be renewably powered without compromise and that we can move towards a cleaner, more renewable future. Many others may choose PHEVs as a solution that can be powered by US energy sources without paying the hefty price of supporting countries that might not have our best interests in mind. In the future, plug-in hybrid gasoline cars may give way to plug-in hybrid ethanol or bio-diesel powered cars. If an economical, environmentally friendly source of hydrogen is ever discovered, plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicles could provide a less expensive, more efficient, and less range limited solution than a pure fuel cell vehicle. Battery solutions such as electric vehicles and the EDrive plug-in hybrid can turn over 80% of the source electricity into usable power for the wheels (after battery and charger losses). Creating hydrogen from water/electricity electrolysis and then compressing the hydrogen for vehicle storage and running the hydrogen through a vehicle fuel cell system may result in less than 20% of the source electricity reaching the wheels. Per unit of power, advanced lithium batteries are also less expensive than fuel cells, meaning that a vehicle with less fuel cell and more batteries would be less expensive. A plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle would also be less dependent on a sparse hydrogen infrastructure as most of the daily driving would come from the economical and convenient nightly home recharge. No matter what the ultimate future renewable vehicle fuel may be, electricity will certainly play a major role. Plug-in hybrids build a bridge between any electrical source and any other vehicle fuel, providing many of the advantages of an electric vehicle with the long range and quick refueling offered by other fuels. Californians are spoiled by one of the cleanest electrical grids in the US, but even where coal supplies much of the electrical power, plugging in vehicles is still a smart environmental solution. One thing that is often overlooked when electric power plant pollution is discussed, is the upstream pollution required to extract oil, transport it, refine it, distribute the gasoline then refuel a vehicle (vapor emissions). Comparing the national electrical grid to the average gallon of refined gasoline shows that the upstream pollution for gasoline production on average is much higher than that of the average electricity source. Plug in vehicles charge at night when electricity is cheapest and most widely available on the grid. While electricity may be produced by renewable or non-CO2 producing sources, fossil fuels at present cannot. The EDrive system replaces the existing Prius NiMH battery and Toyota battery control computer with a larger advanced lithium-ion battery and a proprietary battery monitoring and control system developed by EnergyCS. The new system allows the Prius to be charged at home using a standard 110/120V home outlet. With the larger battery, the Prius can run in electric only 'EV' mode at lower speeds or when less power is needed. The result is EV driving and electrically boosted gasoline driving for the first 50 or so miles with a gasoline efficiency of over 100mpg. After the 50 mile 'boosted' range, the vehicle performs just like a standard Prius until it is plugged in again. The battery system is approximately 50% larger than the Toyota NiMH battery and is installed under the rear cargo carpet without limiting access to the spare tire. Just drive the car like a standard Prius and the EDrive system will use electricity whenever possible to reduce gasoline consumption. After the nightly re-charge, the vehicle can be driven in EV mode until the vehicle speed exceeds 34mph. At this point the engine may start in order to warm up the emission control system. After the emission system is warmed up, the Prius will use the gasoline engine whenever higher speeds or power levels are needed, but will always (for the first 50 or so miles) inject electricity to reduce gasoline consumption. It is possible to drive in EV mode at speeds over 34mph and up to 55mph if the power requirements are low enough. The dashboard mounted display will always tell you if you are using gasoline and if not, how far you can press the accelerator without turning the gasoline engine on. In low speed city driving and 55mph freeway driving it is possible to average over 200mpg. More aggressive driving over 65mph will lower the efficiency to 100mpg or less. For example, 75mph freeway driving could result in less than 80mpg. During the 50 mile boost period, the Prius battery display will show 8 green bars (ie full). After the boost mode, the display (and vehicle performance) will be identical to a standard Prius. Because of the configuration of the Prius, electric use is limited to 21kW and often less. At speeds over 34mph, the electrical contribution is more or less constant. You may find at 55mph that 1/4 of the power is coming from gasoline and 3/4 from electricity, but at 75mph the contribution may be 2/3rd gas and 1/3rd electric. Even though the electric contribution is the same in both cases, the gasoline contribution (and thus mpg) can be dramatically different. Yes, but it requires low speeds (55mph freeway) and mild acceleration in city driving. Most Prius EDrive users will likely get closer to 100mpg. The EDrive lithium battery system is 9kWh or kilowatt-hours (7 times larger than the Prius NiMH battery). The charger used by the EDrive system is 1 kilowatt (kw), about the same as a hair dryer. If the battery were totally depleted, it could take 9 hours (9hrs * 1kW = 9kWh) to charge the battery. If you were to limit your speed to less than 34mph, the gas engine may not come on for over 30 miles. How is the EV range so much larger than a standard Prius with only 7 times as much battery? The standard Prius has a 13kWh NiMH battery but only uses about 25% of it (or 300Wh). The EDrive lithium battery is over 9kWh and up to 75% of it is used (or 6400Wh). Therefore the EDrive system actually has over 20x more energy (6400/300) at its disposal. A full charge could take 9kWh of electricity from the wall socket, but on days when the car is driven less than 50 miles, the electricity needed to re-charge will be less. Then the vehicle will behave exactly like a normal Toyota Prius. The EDrive system was designed for only a 1kW charger with the intent of being slow charged at night when spare electricity is most available on the grid. Unlike an electric vehicle that might need additional charging during the day, a plug-in hybrid can still be driven as a gasoline hybrid after the battery is depleted (50 miles into the day). EDrive is not planning to offer higher speed charging as it shouldn't be needed and would only increase the ... |
| www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2007/mar.html Previous Bill Inserts Each month, PG&E offers important information on rebates, saving energy and safety in printed inserts that accompany your bill. A sincere thank you to all our customers who participated in the 10/20 Plus Winter Gas Savings Program and earned a credit toward their bill this spring. Power Content Label Get all the Important Details Here Third Party Notification Third Party Notification Service helps ensure your loved ones receive the gas and electric services that keep them safe and comfortable. For more information or to apply for Medical Baseline Program Agricultural Customers: The electric rate schedules available to agricultural customers are summarized below. Compare your current rate schedule, found at the beginning of the Electric Account Detail section of your Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) bill with the ones listed below. html AG-1 For customers with maximum demands below 500 kilowatts who have low annual operating hours (generally less than 500 hours), and especially if they can't minimize their use of electricity during summer weekdays (May 1 through Oct 31) between noon and 6 pm This schedule is not available to customers whose meter registers a maximum demand of 200 kilowatts or more for three consecutive months. A TOU meter is required for service on all TOU schedules. If a TOU meter must be installed to meet this requirement, the installation will generally occur within 4 weeks. AG-4 For customers with moderate annual operating hours (generally 500 to 1,200). Additional savings are possible if you can minimize electricity use on summer weekdays between noon and 6 pm Customers whose service has a single motor load of at least 35 hp or multiple motor load of at least 15 hp may save even more on AG-4C if they can minimize usage on summer and winter weekdays from 8:30 am through 9:30 pm AG-5 For customers with high annual operating hours. Additional savings are possible if you can minimize electricity use on summer weekdays between noon and 6 pm Customers whose service has a single motor load of at least 35 hp or multiple motor load of at least 15 hp may save even more on AG-5C if they can minimize usage on summer and winter weekdays from 8:30 am through 9:30 pm AG-R For customers who need to operate 24 hours a day for up to four consecutive days a week (Thu-Sun or Sat-Tues) during the summer but can minimize use from noon to 6 pm on the three remaining weekdays. AG-V For customers who can minimize electricity use on summer weekdays during any one of these time periods: noon to 4 pm, 1 pm to 5 pm, or 2 pm to 6 pm *NEM Net Energy Metering Service. For customers qualifying for agricultural rates who operate a photovoltaic (solar) and/or wind electric generating facility with a generating capacity of 1,000 kW or less on their premises that offsets all or part of their electric load while interconnected with PG&E. Direct Access customers should contact their Energy Service Provider (ESP) for information about the ESP's net metering program. A limited pilot program for bundled service customers on TOU rate schedules who operate an eligible Biogas Digester Electrical Generating Facility located on or adjacent to the customer's premises that offsets all or part of their electric load (including the load from any of their qualifying dairy farm TOU accounts) while interconnected with PG&E. com/gen for current NEM & NEMBIO requirements or for more information. DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS For eligible AG-4 & 5 (rates C&F only), the Critical Peak Pricing (E-CPP) program offers lower rates to customers who agree to reduce electricity use during critical peak periods during the summer season only. For eligible demand metered TOU customers (excluding AG-R, AG-V, Schedule S), the Demand Bidding Program (E-DBP) is a no-risk program whereby participants earn bill credits for reducing their power usage when contacted. html Power Content Label Energy Resources PG&E 2007 POWER MIX* (projected) 2005 CA POWER MIX** (For Comparison) Eligible Renewable 14% 5% Biomass and waste 4% <1% Geothermal 4% 4% Small hydroelectric 4% 1% Solar <1% <1% Wind 2% <1% Coal 2% 38% Large Hydroelectric 17% 24% Natural Gas 43% 33% Nuclear 23% 0% Other 1% 0% TOTAL 100% 100% * At least 95% of PG&E Power Mix is from PG&E-owned resources, purchased from individual suppliers, or provided by the California Department of Water Resources. For specific information about this electricity product, contact PG&E. |
| www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2007/may.html Previous Bill Inserts Each month, PG&E offers important information on rebates, saving energy and safety in printed inserts that accompany your bill. TO OUR BUSINESS CUSTOMERS: We'd like to take a moment to say "thanks." We are honored to be recognized for our customer satisfaction and know that we couldn't have done it without you. For more information Learn the warning signs of a gas pipeline leak: * Rotten-egg smell * Dirt spraying in the air * Hissing sound * Continual bubbling in a pond or creek * Plants that seem to be dead or dying for no reason To report emergency natural gas situations: 1 Move to a safe location and dial 911. Notification of Application Filing by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for Approval of a 2008-2020 Air Conditioning Direct Load Control Program(the SmartAC Program) On April 6, 2007 PG&E filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), requesting approval of a 2008-2020 Air Conditioning Direct Load Control program (the SmartAC program). The SmartAC program will reduce summer peak demands in PG&E's service territory by adjusting participating customers' air conditioning use during critical system conditions. Under SmartAC, participating customers with central air conditioning units will allow PG&E to install either a programmable communicating thermostat or air conditioning switch at their homes or offices. During system emergencies, PG&E will remotely signal the devices to reduce peak electrical demand. The CPUC previously approved a smaller air conditioning program for PG&E's service territory for summer 2007. In this application, PG&E proposes to expand upon the 2007 air conditioning program eventually enlisting approximately 380,000 PG&E customers. This program will help PG&E reduce electrical demand when most needed and increase grid reliability without constructing new power plants or operating less efficient plants that already exist. This application requests approval to collect $362 million in rates over the life of the program from 2008-2020. This program will provide the following benefits to all PG&E electric distribution customers: * increased system reliability * insurance against outages during summer peak months * automatic load reductions for customers participating in the SmartRate program (The SmartRate program is the critical peak pricing program available to customers with an AMI meter currently being rolled out). Yes, there will be slight increases for all customer classes. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. Reviewed by: California Public Utilities Commission Power Content Label ENERGY RESOURCES PG&E 2007 POWER MIX* (Projected) 2006 CAPOWER MIX** (For Comparison) Eligible Renewable 13% 5% Biomass and waste 4% <1% Geothermal 3% 4% Small hydroelectric 4% <1% Solar <1% 0% Wind 2% <1% Coal 2% 29% Large Hydroelectric 17% 31% Natural Gas 44% 35% Nuclear 23% <1% Other 1% 0% Total 100% 100% * At least 95% of PG&E Power Mix is from PG&E-owned resources, purchased from individual suppliers, or provided by the California Department of Water Resources. For specific information about this electricity product, contact PG&E. |
| csua.com/?entry=44738 Wouldn't that completely fuck the CA power grid if even a few % of drivers bought those? I was told that if we modify it to make it plugin, it will drastically reduce the life span of the rechargable battery of those Prius, thus make the car a lot more prohibitive than it would otherwise. The only way to reduce pollution is nuclear-- which will decimate population and reduce consumption, period. A large power plant can run cleaner than a bunch of little power plants. French are racist and they have no problem dumping nuclear waste in some French colony in the Southern Pacific and completely disregards of people live there. Unless we decided that it is ok to mimic what French does in our Indian Reservation, the it is unlikely to work. They are sovereign states that you would have to buy the right from to dump on. We can assume most people would plugin their car at night, which wouldn't have high electric utilization anyway. If only there were some sort of efficient human powered form of transportation... CA ISO was providing 50,000 MW of power during the hottest summer day. At night, the usage is typically half of that (or less). Let's assume we can charge it (at night) 1kW for 9 hours. This means the spare power capacity can potentially charge 15 million plugin prius. Of course my calculation could be off by a power of 10 (or more). My point is that a lot of the infrastructure is there for providing "peak" power. Say during one full day's driving, your car needs to output the equivalent of 200hp lasting 10min (very unlikely) and not re-capturing any of this 10min (very unlikely) and not re-capture any of this via re-generative brakes. Of course, since neither charging nor motor-driving are 100% efficient, in reality you need more than two hair driers' power to provide 200hp-10min's of driving. org "There is a synergy between increased use of PHEVs and expanded use of wind energy. Widespread use of PHEVs in an electric system makes it easier for that system to accept more wind energy. This is because most PHEVs will be charging at night, when demand for electricity is at its lowest, and wind energy production tends to be at its highest in many parts of the country. Also, PHEV batteries can act as storage for wind energy produced at off-peak times." Otherwise, they're firing up those polluting, expensive backups to charge your car when you ain't a blowin' in da wind. The off-peak power is cheaper to generate and tends to use large power plants that produce more efficiently but respond slowly to power demand changes, such as hydro and nuclear. The peaker plants that run at peak hours usually are burning more expensive natural gas. Obviously, this means it must be consuming energy even when it's not transforming anything, but why should it be? Inside, you have active devices that are constantly working to ... My coworker runs his entire household via solar and it got me to wondering what would happen if everyone did this. Obviously industrial plants need more power, but could we do away with a lot of our polluting plants if everyone went solar? I was shocked to see tangible effects when I was in S America last year. Most people will also confirm pretty drastic climate change over the last few years there. The issue is if the climate is changing mostly to due human activity or if it is ... com/id/18472719 \_ So, if you and your family spend 2/3 of the time at home and 1/3 of the time in your car, both are about the same, ... cfm#poll ution How much more will I pay for a PHEV, versus a comparably-sized conventional hybrid? There are prototypes in operation today, but there are no commercially available PHEVs on the market. DaimlerChrysler has developed and is testing a plug-in Sprinter Van prototype with an all-electric range of 20 miles. There are also many conventional hybrids, from sedans to SUVs, that have been converted to plug-ins. Some are getting up to 60 all-electric miles per charge. EnergyCS, replaced the standard 13 kWh battery pack with a 9 kWh battery pack. The larger battery pack was sufficient to provide half of the power needed to drive the first 60 miles each day. It's like having a second small fuel tank, only you fill this one with electricity at an equivalent cost of under $1 per gallon, depending on your car and your electric rate. You refill at home, from an ordinary 120-volt socket, with energy that's much cleaner and cheaper and not imported. The cost of the batteries needed to power a PHEV a sufficient distance is considered to be the stumbling block. However, battery technology is advancing rapidly and cost is expected to decrease with mass manufacture. What distance must a commercially produced PHEV be able to achieve on the battery alone? According to EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), half the cars on US roads are driven 25 miles a day or less. Consequently, a plug-in with a 25-mile all electric range could eliminate gasoline use in the daily commute of tens of millions of Americans. Furthermore drivers of PHEVs would only need to fill up with fuel a few times a year, versus the current 24-36 times a year on average. Won't PHEVs just replace air pollution from automobiles with air pollution from power plants? In almost every conceivable power generation mix plug-ins reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Additionally, emissions would be concentrated in one location that is often away from critically-endangered air sheds. Also, it is less difficult to control emissions from a relatively few number of smokestacks rather than millions of vehicle tail pipes. And, efforts to clean up coal plants and other emissions will continue. In recent decades, many power plants have been modified to lower emissions while a number of older plants have been retired. This trend has resulted in a 25% decrease in emissions from US power plants over the last 25 years. This trend is continuing so emissions will continue to get cleaner over time, meaning emissions generated from electric transportation will get cleaner over time. Furthermore, an increasing share of America's electricity is being produced by zero emission sources - wind and solar. There is a synergy between increased use of PHEVs and expanded use of wind energy. Widespread use of PHEVs in an electric system makes it easier for that system to accept more wind energy. This is because most PHEVs will be charging at night, when demand for electricity is at its lowest, and wind energy production tends to be at its highest in many parts of the country. Also, PHEV batteries can act as storage for wind energy produced at off-peak times. A Toyota Prius, modified with a larger plug-in battery, has essentially the same accelerating power and speed capability of a current hybrid. How much more will a PHEV cost versus a comparably sized conventional hybrid? The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates that, with mass production, the cost of a PHEV battery will add $2,000 to $3,000 to the cost of a conventional hybrid. EPRI studies project that after considering the lower costs of fuel and maintenance, a mass-produced PHEV should provide better overall economics than either a conventional hybrid or a conventional vehicle. Battery costs are the primary reason for this incremental cost, and battery prices are likely to fall with increased production. The cost difference can be offset by federal and state tax credits and rebates designed to reward consumers for producing lower emissions and decreasing their consumption of petroleum-based fuels. Today, hybrid electric vehicle owners qualify for a one-time $2,000 Clean-Fuel Vehicle Federal tax deduction. org Plug-In Partners is a national grass-roots initiative to dem-onstrate to automakers that a market for flexible-fuel Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) exists today. |
| www.csua.org/u/h0a -> www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html Information Administration Logo. Detailed Formulation and Grade Reports Gasoline Historical Data States in each Region Map of Reformulated Gasoline Motor Gasoline Taxes Definitions of Gasoline Formulations Definitions of Gasoline Grades Data Collection Methodology Sampling Methodology Coefficient of Variation of Price Report This Week in Petroleum A Primer on Gasoline Prices Signup for Email Notification Printer Friendly Version US Retail Gasoline Prices - 2 1/2 years Need Help? |
| csua.com -> compilers.cs.ucla.edu/%7Ekchang/motd/ Kais Motd - Kevin' Archived, Indexed, and Searcheable Motd |