patrick.net

Fuck Green Energy, I just hope the price of Rice doesn't quadruple!

Gasoline is refined fossil fuel. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form and minutes to consume. The only reason fossil fuels were abundant and thus cheap was that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life has been dying and decaying on this planet for at least 3.8 billion years.

So this planet has had 3.8 billion years to produce fossil fuels, and then comes 7+ billion humans rapidly consuming them for a century. It shouldn't come at a shock that this magnitude of consumption should deplete even a large stockpile of fuels. And, of course, we'd have to wait another 4 billion years for that stockpile to be replenished.

This is why green energy is not a hippie cultural issue. It is an economic issue that is vital to both our national security and our economy.

The price of gasoline will go up exponentially. The only question is when, and even that has little maneuverability. As fossil fuels dwindle, all economic activity directly or indirectly associated with them will falter as fuels become unbearably expensive.

A smart society would realize that the more green technology is hindered, the greater the rise in fossil fuel price and the greater economic fall will be. Thus, even if you don't give a rat's ass about the environment, people's health, or the livelihoods of those affected by oil spills, if you have any intelligence, you should still be for the elimination of fossil fuel use simply because your wallet will be significantly harmed by the continuing use of fossil fuels.

Dan8267 says

Gasoline is refined fossil fuel. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form and minutes to consume. The only reason fossil fuels were abundant and thus cheap was that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life has been dying and decaying on this planet for at least 3.8 billion years.

Diamonds also take millions (or billions) of years to form naturally but a lab can make them in a matter of weeks. Same with gasoline. The problem of course is that synthetic gasoline is expensive, much more expensive than sourcing it from natural petroleum deposits.

Washington (CNN) -- The air we breathe in the United States is getting better -- at least by one recent measure.
New data released by NASA this week show that at least one pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, has decreased substantially over the past decade.
Areas with a high level of nitrogen dioxide have decreased an average of about 40%, said Bryan Duncan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
"It happened everywhere, not just in a few areas. It's over the whole country. So this is a real success story for everyone in the U.S.," he said.
The decrease is particularly prominent in the crowded Northeast, the Ohio River Valley, and some major cities. For example, NASA reported a 32% decrease in New York City and a 42% decrease in Atlanta between the periods of 2005-2007 and 2009-2011.
Duncan attributes the decrease to two factors: cars that are more efficient, and scrubbers on smokestack emissions that remove toxins.
"It means fewer hospital admissions, it means fewer emergency room visits, it means fewer doctor visits," said Janice Nolen, assistant vice president of the American Lung Association.

CaptainShuddup says

Washington (CNN) -- The air we breathe in the United States is getting better -- at least by one recent measure.

New data released by NASA this week show that at least one pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, has decreased substantially over the past decade.

Due to more efficient cars. Due to liberal policy?

http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/409996/american-drivers-new-cars-emit-22-less-co2-6-years-ago-what-happened

After almost three decades of stagnancy US fuel economy is finally on the move. Its actually quite something. Fuel consumed peaked in 2004, miles driven in 2006 and vehicle numbers topped out in 2008. Could motorization in the US have peaked? That’s a tough one, but driving emissions may well have.

What we do know is that the last time we saw this type of improvement was when the Iranian Revolution resulted in 4.5 million barrels of missing production. In the image above we can see that fuel economy was stagnant for decades as all engineering improvements were eroded by American’s buying bigger and bigger cars.

Whose fault is it Zzyzzx?

THis has been for over a decade and well before the Liberals hijacked science and started claiming the world was doomed. This was before the failures of Solyndra, before the refused affordable cheap dumped chinese solar panels, this was before the $60,000 hybrid cars that gets free fast pass on the Elitist Lanes on all of the highways in US major cities.

As I've been saying for the last ten years, Miami is living proof that the emissions standards set by previous administrations had already reduced pollutants and improved air quality. If we could you could go all the way back to 2007 when I was saying in several posts.

That when I moved to South Florida in 1985, from i95 the the Miami skyline was shrouded in a dingy hazy brown smog. That smog has been gone since the late 90's.

You guys really need to keep your shit straight.

CaptainShuddup says

You guys really need to keep your shit straight.

Here is some shit:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/19/obama-carbon-emissions-auto-industry

America's gas-guzzling automobiles were heading towards extinction yesterday as Barack Obama set strict limits on car exhaust emissions and directed producers to make a more fuel-efficient vehicle fleet. The policy requires US auto makers to produce cars and trucks that achieve an average 35.5mpg by 2016, and will reduce America's carbon dioxide emissions by 30%.

More shit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama Administration today finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. When combined with previous standards set by this Administration, this move will nearly double the fuel efficiency of those vehicles compared to new vehicles currently on our roads. In total, the Administration’s national program to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels.

Really!

OMG my Mazda 3 already gets 40, why is Obama going backwards demanding standards that are sub par to today's best standards?

Don't answer that, quick just go grab a chart, any chart will do. We haven't gone over the Obamcare sign up numbers in a few weeks.

CaptainShuddup says

Really!

OMG my Mazda 3 already gets 40, why is Obama going backwards demanding standards that are sub par to today's best standards?

Don't answer that, quick just go grab a chart, any chart will do. We haven't gone over the Obamcare sign up numbers in a few weeks.

Liar.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Mazda2014.shtml

Strategist says

CaptainShuddup says

Really!

OMG my Mazda 3 already gets 40, why is Obama going backwards demanding standards that are sub par to today's best standards?

Don't answer that, quick just go grab a chart, any chart will do. We haven't gone over the Obamcare sign up numbers in a few weeks.

Liar.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Mazda2014.shtml

40 MPG highway

Strategist says

The policy requires US auto makers to produce cars and trucks that achieve an average 35.5mpg by 2016, and will reduce America's carbon dioxide emissions by 30%.

CaptainShuddup says

Really!

OMG my Mazda 3 already gets 40,

New Renter says

40 MPG highway

Alright, now how did I speak the truth wrong?

Besides the natural curve of the projection clearly shows that cars are already slated to reach just 2 more points by 2016 anyway. Whether Obama decreed it or not.

But it's always nice to take credit for doing nothing.

CaptainShuddup says

New Renter says

40 MPG highway

Alright, now how did I speak the truth wrong?

I see 28mpg City. Am I wrong?

Strategist says

CaptainShuddup says

New Renter says

40 MPG highway

Alright, now how did I speak the truth wrong?

I see 28mpg City. Am I wrong?

The captain just said his car was capable of 40 mpg. You called him a liar and provided a link which shows his car is indeed capable of 40 mpg. That's EPA numbers, if he were to hypermile he could probably do better.

So why do you think he is lying when your own link veifies his claim?

CaptainShuddup says

OMG my Mazda 3 already gets 40,

New Renter says

The captain just said his car was capable of 40 mpg.

New Renter says

So why do you think he is lying when your own link veifies his claim?

He does not say "capable". He says "gets."
No one drives out of the garage at highway speed.

Maybe you guys are hung up on what the article means by "average". In this case average referrs to the Corperate Average Fuel Economy.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

Strategist says

I see 28mpg City. Am I wrong?

City isn't the average.

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

I see 28mpg City. Am I wrong?

City isn't the average.

Highway isn't the average.
How about combined? 32mpg.

New Renter says

That's EPA numbers, if he were to hypermile he could probably do better.

If you buy your gas at 5am and drive like Ms Daisy is your passenger, you'll get almost 50mpg.

To be honest the best I can get is 27mph.

But for my lead foot, that's like 50 mph.I could never squeeze over 9 to 12 mph out of my CX-9. It was the main reason I traded it in, and got the 3 and the CX-5 for my wife.

Not only are my payments the same, but just what I'm saving in gas, is paying the payments. That CX-9 was like driving a motorized Lazyboy chair, with angel soft suspension. The Cadillac wishes it drove like the CX-9.

But the Skyactive technology in the the later models, really do a great job at saving on gas. The energy from idling is stored into a capacitor, so the the Air conditioner and the Cars electronics are always pulling power from the stored energy, rather than taxing your alternator or air compressor. The car never revs up or down at the red lights as the AC clicks on and off.

Nope it seems the official average is the best number regardless how you got there.

CaptainShuddup says

But the Skyactive technology in the the later models, really do a great job at saving on gas. The energy from idling is stored into a capacitor, so the the Air conditioner and the Cars electronics are always pulling power from the stored energy, rather than taxing your alternator or air compressor. The car never revs up or down at the red lights as the AC clicks on and off.

That's good, but why didn't you go for a hybrid if saving gas was the motive?
50mpg Prius, I am getting 48mpg makes it very economical. Maintenance is low too.

Strategist says

That's good, but why didn't you go for a hybrid if saving gas was the motive?

I need to be able to look out my back window when I'm backing out of the drive way. I could go on and on, but you'd probably just think I'm nit picking and sbh will claim I'm being racist, so what's the point?

Strategist says

50mpg Prius, I am getting 48mpg makes it very economical. Maintenance is low too.

You also paid $20K more than I did.

1) Mazda's all combustion almost does as well as a hybrid. Plus I'm not hauling around the extra weight.
2) I'm not in any danger of being taxed because my car doesn't contribute enough to the Gas tax.
3)the car weighs about half of the Prius without the batteries.
4)It's at least 10 to 20 grand cheaper
5)I've always thought the Prius was the ugliest car ever produced. The AMC pacer has looks in spades compared to the Prius.

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

That's good, but why didn't you go for a hybrid if saving gas was the motive?

I need to be able to look out my back window when I'm backing out of the drive way. I could go on and on, but you'd probably just think I'm nit picking and sbh will claim I'm being racist, so what's the point?

Strategist says

50mpg Prius, I am getting 48mpg makes it very economical. Maintenance is low too.

You also paid $20K more than I did.

I doubt it.
I am a haggler, car dealers hate the sight of me. And I hate the sight of them.
I paid about 23K before taxes and stuff.
Run the numbers and I guarantee your next car will be a hybrid.

Strategist says

Run the numbers and I guarantee your next car will be a hybrid.

Not unless it looks like a car.

The Volt looks like a car, but will kill you.

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

Run the numbers and I guarantee your next car will be a hybrid.

Not unless it looks like a car.

The Volt looks like a car, but will kill you.

I am leaning towards getting the Volt when the newer version comes out next year. I love the Volt.
PS - electric car leases are heavily subsidized by the auto makers. I never lease, but I may for the bargain.

Strategist says

PS - electric car leases are heavily subsidized by the auto makers. I never lease, but I may for the bargain.

Yeah I leased these cars, and already feeling stupid. I was financing the CX-9 and had another 2 years to go on it. I walked away from it Scott free, so for what I'm paying for the lease on the two vehicles is the same as what I was paying the bank for the CX-9.

But like I said, at least the difference in Gas is paying the difference alone.

It was like $70 to fill that thing up, and I had to do it about two times a week.

Now I'm getting almost two weeks out of a fill up. Now that I'm working at home, I'm using even less. In fact, my situation changed two weeks after I made the deal.

So while I'm not actually consuming the same amount in gas anymore, I still like to use it to justify my stupid decision to lease instead of buying.

CaptainShuddup says

But the Skyactive technology in the the later models, really do a great job at saving on gas. The energy from idling is stored into a capacitor, so the the Air conditioner and the Cars electronics are always pulling power from the stored energy, rather than taxing your alternator or air compressor. The car never revs up or down at the red lights as the AC clicks on and off.

You are confusing Skyactiv with I-eloop.

I-eloop uses the alternator to capture energy during negative acceleration (braking). This energy is stored in a capacitor to run the various accessories like the A/C for a few minutes. It adds about 1mpg to the city but nothing to the highway MPG (no braking). Cost wise its not really worth the investment unless you do all city driving and gas is expensive.

http://www.mazda.com/technology/env/i-eloop/

Skyactiv is the 13:1 compression ratio for the gasoline engine, damned impressive when you understand its done on regular grade gas. Even more impressive is the 14:1 compression on the diesel. That allows the diesel to be built using lighter components which further improves fuel economy.

http://www.mazda.com/technology/skyactiv/engine/

I'm wondering if this might almost be at the point where a driver can fill the tank with whatever liquid fuels is available - gas, diesel, ethanol, butanol, or a blend of whatever. The engine would sense the composition of the fuel and make the appropriate adjustments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneous_charge_compression_ignition

CaptainShuddup says

new data released by NASA this week show that at least one pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, has decreased substantially over the past decade.

Areas with a high level of nitrogen dioxide have decreased an average of about 40%, said Bryan Duncan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

But isn't this the result of legislative regulatory pushes for cars and factories to emit less pollution ?

And I thought you said you and your plutocratic overlords hated those liberal, homosexual busy body liberals with their big words and all their talk about facts, logic, science and their fancy pants book larnin ?

I thought that was your definition of evil.

CaptainShuddup says

Duncan attributes the decrease to two factors: cars that are more efficient, and scrubbers on smokestack emissions that remove toxins.

New Renter says

Diamonds also take millions (or billions) of years to form naturally but a lab can make them in a matter of weeks. Same with gasoline. The problem of course is that synthetic gasoline is expensive, much more expensive than sourcing it from natural petroleum deposits.

Yes, one can transform one form of energy into the chemical bonds that make up gasoline or other fuels, but that's not the point.

The point is that you have to generate that energy in the first place. Nature generates the energy by collecting solar radiation (and trace amount of geothermal energy) and storing a tiny percentage of it as fossil fuels every day for billions of years. It's a very tiny fraction since plants have to grow, be eaten by animals that are then eaten by others, eventually a few of which decay in just the right environment to produce fossil fuels.

Despite being a very inefficient use of solar energy, the long time line allowed the creation of vast amounts of fossil fuels. It is only the timescale that allowed the supply to be so great.

There is little reason for humans to create artificial fossil fuels. It does not solve the energy crisis. In fact, the generation of fossil fuels would entail far less effeciency than simply using electrical motors rather than internal combustion engines. The only advantage of creating synthetic gasoline would be to avoid changing infrastructure, and in the long run, that's a very bad trade-off for several reasons.

1. We need new infrastructure to make transportation faster, cheaper, and more reliable.
2. The existing infrastructure heavily pollutes.
3. Transportation is much more energy efficient if we move away from heat engines and towards pure electric devices.
4. Our current infrastructure is crumbling anyways and needs to be replaced. It's cost effective to upgrade to modern infrastructures rather than repairing 20th century infrastructure.

Strategist says

I am leaning towards getting the Volt when the newer version comes out next year. I love the Volt.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130812/carnews/130819973
Next-generation Chevy Volt to have 60-mile electric range?

I bought a used Volt 4 months ago: Used they are as much as 50% of the cost new and this one is a 2011 with less than 30k.

For starters, the comment that these "will kill you" is sort of uninformed. The reason it was made is I assume was because of the early crash test results where the car was first crashed, the battery was punctured and then the car sat out back in the weather for 2 weeks. The battery was not discharged. GM even has instructions that are under the hood. You are supposed to discharge the battery if the case is damaged. Duh. So in other words it would be the same if a normal car was crashed and the gas tank was ruptured and instead of draining the gas, let it sit out in the hot baking sun with the gas dribbling out for a few days.

Anyway, my real-life experience so far is that I barely ever fill it up with gas. Ive filled it up twice: once when we got it as it was empty and a second time after a weekend long trip where we did have to use the engine. But on average the car goes 38-45 miles on the battery which gets me to work where I plug it in to go home. Typically the engine only runs for a few minutes a week. As of now I am getting the equivalent of 214 MPG.

My electric bill costs an extra $40 a month. That works out to paying roughly the equivalent of $1.33 a gallon, or 1/4 of current gas prices.

Otherwise these are surprisingly nice cars with every whistle and bell imaginable. I'd say they are closer to being like a luxury car inside. The ride is excellent because the weight is all in the lower part of the car ( Battery ) and so it snugs the corners. When you put it into "Sports" mode it will pretty much smoke the tires. The experience you get with an all-electric drivetrain powering the wheels is like driving a diesel: lots and lots of instant torque.

Dan8267 says

Thus, even if you don't give a rat's ass about the environment, people's health, or the livelihoods of those affected by oil spills, if you have any intelligence, you should still be for the elimination of fossil fuel use simply because your wallet will be significantly harmed by the continuing use of fossil fuels.

What make of electric car is on your avatar? It's a bit hard to discern from the crappy picture...

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[8] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[13][14] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[15] The technical potential available from biomass is from 100–300 EJ/year.[10] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined,[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

This alone makes me believe the pursuit of synthetic fuels is not a fools errand. It is however difficult and very expensive, especially compared to the incredible bounty that nature has given us in the form of fossil and nuclear fuels.

I do wholeheartedly agree conservation should also be a goal. Unless essential to your job or you are insecure about your tiny penis (and/or are a realtor) there is no reason to drive an 8MPG vehicle when a 30MPG+ vehicle will do the job just as well.

edvard2 says

For starters, the comment that these "will kill you" is sort of uninformed.

No I'm going on the reports of the ignition going kaput while your traveling 80mph down i95 and the steering locks up.

New Renter says

I do wholeheartedly agree conservation should also be a goal. Unless essential to your job or you are insecure about your tiny penis (and/or are a realtor) there is no reason to drive an 8MPG vehicle when a 30MPG+ vehicle will do the job just as well.

Aren't we forgetting something here? Like little thing called "money". Replacing older, paid-off, minimally insured 8mpg vehicle (what is it, btw? Even 20 y.o. LandCruiser gets ~13mpg in mixed cycle) with a new 30MPG+ is often not economically justifiable. In fucking California you'll pay on average $3k in sales tax alone just for the pleasure of switching cars.

Dan8267 says

A smart
society would realize that the more green technology is hindered, the
greater the rise in fossil fuel price and the greater economic fall
will be. Thus, even if you don't give a rat's ass about the
environment, people's health, or the livelihoods of those affected by
oil spills, if you have any intelligence, you should still be for the
elimination of fossil fuel use simply because your wallet will be significantly harmed by the continuing use of fossil fuels.

Your argument, sound as it appears, requires that people do a little thinking, in our democracy, 1-person/1-vote system. But thinking is severely hindered by having your head up your ass -- look at these track records of ours.
The Public Be Suckered
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

I SAY: Get these charts in people's faces, everywhere, all the time. I suspect that the powers-that-be AGREE -- because they currently keep the visibility of these charts at DAMN NEAR ZERO. See
http://www.showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html

Straw Man says

New Renter says

I do wholeheartedly agree conservation should also be a goal. Unless essential to your job or you are insecure about your tiny penis (and/or are a realtor) there is no reason to drive an 8MPG vehicle when a 30MPG+ vehicle will do the job just as well.

Aren't we forgetting something here? Like little thing called "money". Replacing older, paid-off, minimally insured 8mpg vehicle (what is it, btw? Even 20 y.o. LandCruiser gets ~13mpg in mixed cycle) with a new 30MPG+ is often not economically justifiable. In fucking California you'll pay on average $3k in sales tax alone just for the pleasure of switching cars.

That's a bit of apples to oranges comparison. A fairer way to look at it is how much it would cost to sell your 20 year old Landcruiser and buy an equivalent 20 year old 30 mpg car, say a Toyota Corolla wagon. The corolla costs about 1000-1600 while the Landcruiser costs $1450-2100.

http://www.kbb.com/whats-my-car-worth/

With taxes you'll about break even.

Now if you need the Landcruiser for its space and all wheel drive capability because you live in a rural area where the roads are crap that is a different matter. Even then a Subaru Forrester or Outback is probably a better choice.

New Renter says

That's a bit of apples to oranges comparison. A fairer way to look at it is how much it would cost to sell your 20 year old Landcruiser and buy an equivalent 20 year old 30 mpg car, say a Toyota Corolla wagon. The corolla costs about 1000-1600 while the Landcruiser costs $1450-2100.

20 y.o. Corolla will be pretty much spent. 20 y.o. LC will be still pretty much alive and kicking. Anyhow, keeping a 20 y.o. car that was in the family the whole time and buying somebody's 20 y.o. car with it's history unknown is not even in the same zipcode. While the former is pretty reasonable, the latter is insane and should be done only if you have no other choice and biking to work is not an option. Talk about apples and oranges. ;)

Now if you need the Landcruiser for its space and all wheel drive capability because you live in a rural area where the roads are crap that is a different matter. Even then a Subaru Forrester or Outback is probably a better choice.

20 y.o. LC seats 7-8 and can tow a boat. 20 y.o. Subary anything - can't do either. And I've already covered the obvious difference between MY 20 y.o. LC and bunch-of-stranger's-over-20-years anything. ;)