CR4® - The Engineer's Place for News and Discussion®

 Previous in Forum: Earth's Rarest Structure Created by Asteroid? Next in Forum: Neil deGrasse Tyson Advocating for NASA Funding
Guru

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancleave, Ms about 30 miles inland from Biloxi and the coast
Posts: 3088

# Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/24/2016 2:46 PM

As a starting point; if we take oil, refine it to gasoline; then transport and distribute it for use as automobile fuel, how does that compare in bottom line cost to using oil to run a generator to charge batteries for use in an electric automobile? On top of that add the cost of producing batteries. Some say battery powered cars will result in an overall saving in energy, besides improving our air quality. My feeling is any time there is an additional stage in energy conversion, the overall effect is; more energy is used. I know there are many factors involved in my statement.

Take for example a conventional car. gasoline to engine one stage of energy conversion. In a hybrid car, gas to engine to electricity generation to motor is 3 stages of energy conversion. It would appear that the overall amount of energy consumed would be greater with the hybrid.

__________________
Mr.Ron from South Ms.
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#1

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 2:50 PM

"Consider the Tesla Model S, which has an available 85kWh battery and a 265 mile range.

Consider a similar gas-powered car, which gets 35 mpg.
Gasoline contains about 33kwh of energy per gallon.
The Tesla uses 320 Wh/mile of energy (85kWh/265 miles)
The gas powered car uses 940 Wh/mile of energy (33kWh/35 miles)
Once the energy is onboard (not counting the efficiency of the power generation, oil refining, or charging), the Tesla is using only about a third as much energy as the comparable gasoline-powered car."

"The direct answer to your question is that electric engines can be more than 90% efficient and even up to 98% efficient while combustion engines are 30 to 45% efficient. "

https://www.quora.com/How-energy-efficient-are-electric-motors-compared-to-combustion-engines

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Score 1 for Off Topic
2
Guru

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancleave, Ms about 30 miles inland from Biloxi and the coast
Posts: 3088
#2

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 3:02 PM

I realize the efficiency of electric over IC engines, but I feel the added processes like battery manufacture, material cost, transportation, charging facilities and everything needed to support batteries would negate any savings over a conventional IC powered car. We are not comparing apples to apples, but to every other fruit out there.

__________________
Mr.Ron from South Ms.
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#3

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 3:18 PM

Well you have to consider economies of scale, and a quick side-by-side comparison of vehicles on the market by sales price, then the maintenance cost of ownership over the design life of the vehicle...

"Driving an electric car can save 36% or \$10,538 over five years."

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/electric-hybrid-gas-how-they-compare-costs-2015/

http://www.edmunds.com/new-cars/

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19164
#4

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 3:27 PM

but the price of buying an electric car is a guess about \$20,000.00 more than a comparable sized ICE car.

__________________
phoenix911
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#5

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 3:36 PM

Well closer to 10k, but depends on options....Here's a ford focus in all 3 iterations...but remember there are tax breaks, incentives and other benefits the hybrid gets...

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/electric/years/

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/sedan/years/

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/hatchback/years/

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
2
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Trantor
Posts: 5223
#6

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 3:42 PM

About 67 percent of US electrical energy is produced by fossil fuels -- 33% coal, 33% natural gas, and 1% petroleum. So when you energize the battery in your electric car only about a third of that energy is 'clean' (nuclear, hydro, solar, wind...)

So it's only a pollution-free vehicle where the driver is; the pollution has merely been transferred to a different location. So I'm not sure the 'air quality' argument is valid on a global scale.

__________________
Whiskey, women -- and astrophysics. Because sometimes a problem can't be solved with just whiskey and women.
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#7

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 4:08 PM

Even so the energy usage is decreased due to efficiency, by ~2/3...so net reduction in pollution no matter the source...

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Off Topic (Score 3)
5
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 941
#16

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 10:48 PM

Even so the energy usage is decreased due to efficiency, by ~2/3...so net reduction in pollution no matter the source...

Not likely. The real comparison of efficiency needs to go back to the overall efficiency of getting the fuel out of the ground all the way to the point where it's burned in an engine, regardless of what the engine is doing (turning wheels or running a generator). In the case of a fossil fueled generator, there is a very realistic chance that number will be better than the equivalent North American average for fuels burned in an IC engine on a comparative energy basis, but you also have to account for the overall generation efficiency, transmission losses, charging losses and motive power efficiency versus the IC engine efficiency. I would venture to guess that on average, it's a wash- certainly not 3 times as efficient, and in the case of an older coal plant versus a natural gas or propane vehicle, I wouldn't be surprised if the IC engine polluted less.

So why is the electric cheaper? Easy- cheaper fuel and fewer fingers in the pie lead to a cheaper price on an energy density basis. Oh, and all the road taxes that are necessary to keep the government happy aren't in there- yet.

Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Trantor
Posts: 5223
#18

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 8:24 AM

According to Gaspricewatch.com:

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) and 24.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel.

So gas powered cars are helping to pay for electric cars. Not to mention the various subsidies to encourage people to buy EVs.

__________________
Whiskey, women -- and astrophysics. Because sometimes a problem can't be solved with just whiskey and women.
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#32

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 3:54 PM

Yes but distribution system for electricity is the power lines, and the gasoline has to be trucked in every week or so to every location...The trucks add to the pollution and environmental costs with spills and last mile fuel costs...Then it has to be pumped into the fuel tank.....You have a very expensive distribution network...

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
4
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5820
#8

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 4:24 PM

Ironically, an electric car results in more air pollution if the electricity is generated with a coal plant. So it depends on where you live whether it's cleaner. Electricity is not a fuel, it's merely the conduit between the fuel that supplies the energy to the auto that uses it.

A gasoline powered Ford Focus (left) is more harmful to the environment in urban areas whereas an electric Ford Focus (right) is more harmful in rural areas in the eastern part of the country.

http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/

Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19164
#9

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 4:33 PM

Power (coal) plants in the Midwest (atleast in the upper Midwest) are shutting down (for now) just for the reason it can but electricity cheaper off the grid elsewhere. Probably from NG power plants. Wind is coming around but I don't think its establish well enough to make much of an impact.

__________________
phoenix911
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#10

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 4:45 PM

"Total Electricity System Power

Fuel TypeCalifornia In-State Generation (GWh)Percent of California In-State Generation
Coal1,0110.5%
Large Hydro14,0527.1%
Natural Gas121,93461.3%
Nuclear17,0278.6%

Electricity generation is more and more natural gas than anything else....

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:1

• Coal = 33%
• Natural gas = 33%
• Nuclear = 20%
• Hydropower = 6%
• Other renewables = 7%
• Biomass = 1.6%
• Geothermal = 0.4%
• Solar = 0.6%
• Wind = 4.7%
• Petroleum = 1%
• Other gases = <1%

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
2
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8399
#11

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 4:54 PM

The bigger issue is energy density per unit of cost for transport and or storage being the energy content Vs volume/method of production is not equal for all sources.

It takes ~33 group 31 deep cycle batteries to equal the energy storage capacity of ~1 gallon of gasoline which the last time I bought a decent quality group 31 deep cycle set me back around \$140 so 33 of them would cost me a good \$4600+ and an additional ~\$6 to charge up one time where as my 1 gallon gas can for my chainsaw cost me ~\$5 and another \$2.50 to fill.

Unless I poke a hole in it my \$5 plastic jug has a near indefinite service life whereas even if very well maintained those batteries might make it 10 years and several hundred charge-discharge cycles putting their cost per cycle way higher for the energy they stored/transferred Vs my 1 gallon gas can.

Energy density. Batteries Vs Gasoline

2
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#12

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 5:07 PM

We have to consider the environmental costs as well though.....and the efficiency with which these various energy sources can be used....

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

 Coal (anthracite) 228.6 Coal (bituminous) 205.7 Coal (lignite) 215.4 Coal (subbituminous) 214.3 Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3 Gasoline 157.2 Propane 139 Natural gas 117

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

Nuclear generation is the way to go for source if you ask me....you can't beat nuclear for power density...

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
9
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8399
#14

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 8:56 PM

Those environmental value/cost numbers are the ones I have the hardest time working with let alone validating to any degree.

How much of it is real measurable bonified true environmental value and how much of it is pure politics and money grabbing under the name of environmental this that or other?

To me it's much like a GWP (Global Warming Potential) value on a substance. Although certain chemicals compounds have shown a POTENTIAL to do such and such in highly controlled laboratory situation but when put against all of natures undefined and undocumented influences for the most part all of it has so far either washed out as being unmeasurable or of absolutely no definable real impact in actual real environment testing and measuring endeavors.

It's like the Ozone depletion rating. Sure enough in laboratory testing whatever it is can breakdown Ozone yet in real life open atmospheric measurements and testing we can't any samples that show any reliable or correlative data that adds up.

Heck, the 'experts whined for decades about the Ozone hole and Ozone depletion only to find out that the damn stuff on a global scale isn't changing its overall values in any significantly measurable volume. In fact, what we did find out once global near real-time monitoring and date collection system were in place is that the damn ozone hole is more than likely a normal seasonal density change (just like the localized temperatures of any single area or hemisphere of the plant changes from high to low and back over the cycle of a year) that has likely been going on since well before we humans got up on both feet and started walking.

The thing is after some nearly three decades of the environmentalist screaming about this that and whatever else they can find being the end all beat all world climate changing disaster for humans and every other living thing as well we have yet to ever have one single prediction of theirs come close to being remotely accurate.

Instead, what we have seen is big business and politicians robbing us blind over and over and over again using the scare tactics behind it all while the world keeps right on going as it always has.

The problem I have is that if the overall global data is unbiasedly analyzed that instead of seeing catastrophic planetary environmental collapses one after another what we see is a whole lot of everything either not having changed at all or having gotten better with only a few select areas that were, for the most part, largely harsh crappy environments to begin with, having stayed the same or have gotten worse yet technically even they have all still stayed well within their known climatic and environmental deviation limits.

Over the last 20 - 30 years we were repeatedly told that we would be seeing dozens of high-level end of times devastating hurricanes and storms just in the continental US alone every year along with drastic and wild sea level rises plus scorching continental wide droughts yet, well, dang it all, not much changed and nothing has gone far enough outside of the known averages of natural actions to even show up as much more than statistical agrigate.

Heck, we can't even show a visually confirmable change in sea level rises over the last near-century using fixed man-made and or natural geological markers/reference points and so far and way-way too much of the world either didn't change or it actually improved by our human needs standards to be able to call anything a severe worldwide negative impact on any front or measurable data sets.

Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#15

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 10:38 PM

OK I'll cover some real world realities....For one thing by the time we start seeing measurable sea level change, it will probably be too late to do anything about it.....So it's not something we really want to see increasing at a noticeable rate.....Air pollution is measureable and it effects the health of everyone living on the planet, it's just most noticeable in the cities.....Having this country dependent on other nations for oil, is an untenable situation, we must attain energy independence as quickly as we can....The temperature is increasing on average and that is changing things, some like you might say those changes are making things better, but that is isolated and doesn't take into account that it is a package deal, so the effects in other places are not for the best and in some cases maybe catastrophic in nature....

Hydrogen fuel cell cars.... fixes all this....

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Score 1 for Off Topic
5
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8399
#17

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 5:04 AM

Okay? how exactly do you weight this being statistically ~90 % of the world's population lives in urban areas which represent less than 2% of the total land area of the planet?

Do you measure by numbers of people affected or by land mass affected and what effect exactly do you use?

Also, how do you factor in long-term sea level rise Vs present coastline construction that presently handles short-term sea level rises of up to 20+ feet during combined high tide and storm surge events without mass population inundation events?

Present data says we have had anywhere from zero to 10 inches of sea level rise in the last 100 years and could see another zero to 10 feet over the next 1000 so how exactly does that work that we can't give present rates of rise an exact value and that predicted worst case future values still fall way short of present natural high-level events that clearly do not inundate the coastlines and destroy cities now?

Same with a statistical temperature change over a year Vs the known upper and lower limits that have ever occurred in any single area or combined region?

How does having more warm days in winter which affects the average yearly mean temp affect things when there has been no major deviation in the overall presently seen upper limits of the region or system?

That's what I have a problem wrapping my head around. If the statistical average says something increased yet there has been nothing of any significance that has ever gone outside of the known range of limits of they system was anything actually affected at all or is it just a bunch of fancy number juggling based on picking and choosing only certain criteria or data sets out of the system Vs using the whole?

Mostly I'm just curious as to how this works that if 5% of the land mass that also contains 95% of the population sees a negative trend in their climate and the other 95% of the land mass that only contains 5% of the population sees either minimal to no negative change or sees an actual an improvement which reference point is the significant one?

Same with sea level rise. If we can't pin down the exact changes over the last century other than to say it was anywhere from zero to foot or less and our present seaside urban centers construction methods handle 20+ foot surge events without major issues how exactly does an as much as 10-foot rise over the next 1000 years really affect anything at all? Are all of our present construction built to some impossibly immovable or unchangeable standard that no future construction will be able adapt anything further more?

My point is I see us humans as an ever adapting highly capable species that has the ability to cope with change but maybe that's just me and everyone else are now just rooted to the ground where they stand forever doomed to have to deal with what goes on around them with zero chance of being able to move or adjust to even the slightest of change at all.

Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#19

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 12:57 PM

20' tidal surge!! Yikes!!! You do realize that most of Florida is around 5' above sea level don't you? I would think a 20' tidal surge would be devastating to anyplace on Earth, even with a narrow localized event, like a hurricane, if it was to occur at high tide, somewhat less at low tide....There are places on Earth that experience a huge tidal difference where 20' surge at low tide would be non-eventful, and as far inland as you are, well no effect at all, but that's not the point...If we made the high tide level the median level then the high tide mark would be that much higher, you don't seem to get that....You seem to think we can pick up and move all the infrastructure at the drop of a hat, and pay no attention to the dollar figures involved(trillons) that have been invested...Most of the people on Earth live in coastal regions, and that's where most of the infrastructure exists...

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Score 1 for Off Topic
4
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8399
#34

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 5:07 PM

Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans with a 27+ foot surge going into a city that was already 10 -15 feet below sea level.

New York City took a 11+ foot surge back in the 1960's and survived well before much of their present sea front improvements were made and obviously was not washed away being their mean urban elevation is ~33+ feet above present sea level.

Pretty much all of Florida's coastlines have been hit with 20+ foot storm surges in the last 50 years and a few like Pensacola Beach have survived 24+ surges in the last 20 years and obviously Florida as a whole is still occupied. Which BTW the average elevation of Florida is ~100 feet with many areas over 300 feet above sea level.

Which to me makes a pretty strong point that as our coastal cities and regions stand now we obviously can cope with sudden high sea level changes that occur in periods of hours to a day without mass deaths and societal ending destruction.

Given that I would think that would be a very reasonable indication that if we are given hundreds to a 1000+ years to adjust to a 10 foot sea level rise it's not really going to be a life and society altering/destroying issue that has to be dealt with suddenly and at great cost. If anything as the typical demolition and renewal of coastal property goes given a time frame of hundreds of years no one's even going to notice it.

Realistically as the typical demolition and renewal of coastal property goes given a time frame of hundreds of years or more no one's even going to notice it.

Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#35

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 6:00 PM

As you can see the area's where there is population is largely on the coast lines, which are all 5 to 10 feet above sea level....The higher elevations are in north florida which is very sparsely populated...I mean would you move to Florida to live inland in the north section? There's nothing there it's wilderness...

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/news/senate-climate-change-hearing-focuses-on-sea-level-rise

Florida 17' sea rise, what's left above water....

http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/sea-levels-map.php

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#36

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 6:07 PM

Cool flash rising sea level...

http://cegis.usgs.gov/sea_level_rise.html

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
3
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8399
#37

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 8:26 PM

Maybe they need to talk to the Dutch about how to build sea dikes that work being they are already reclaiming land down to some -23 feet below sea level as is being the Netherlands has some 3.5 million people already living in areas that are below sea level with nothing more than their dike systems to keep them safe.

My point is given several hundred years to make dikes and or relocate is not a major issue to concern ourselves with today. Everyone born 200 - 500 years ago sure as heck didn't lift a finger to make our lives any better today(where I live not much over 100 years ago there weren't even roads established yet let alone cities or anything else that would be of any use or value in today's world) ) and that certainly didn't drive us to the brink of extinction as would many of the climate change extremists suggest that us not doing anything now will do to those who live hundreds of years from now with who knows what sort of incredible scientific, engineering and construction advancement and capabilities at their fingertips.

Sorry but I see our human race as a species as one of ever advancing knowledge and technology to which to me assuming that people a hundred or more years from now are going to be a worldwide culture of cognitively non-functioning idiots with no survival skills let alone ability to construct anything of their own that have to eek by on what we left them from today's time assuming their idiot ancestors managed to move or adapt instead of stand there in their extremely slowly flooding condemned homes for the decades of time it would take for the water to get deep enough to drown is just absurd to the point of being stupid.

I would say its safe to expect that about as much of today's structures and present seafront real estate will be around and in use 100 years from now as is that which was built 100 years before today which is not much now but a few but historical sites or abandoned ruins.

Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#38

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 8:35 PM

Hah, this may very well be true, but at least you can get behind ending air pollution and achieving energy independence....? Putting an end to global warming is just the cherry on top.....

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5820
#33

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/25/2016 3:54 PM

Extrapolating into the next century when the sea level rises, the entire coastline will be wall to wall casinos, so with a bit of plaster in between the buildings, we have a ready-made sea wall.

Power-User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 308
#41

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/26/2016 10:57 PM

Agreed, that air pollution is to be reduced. Pollutants are such as sulphur and other chemical substances as well as solids but certainly not CO2 that is an invisible gas, you can't even see it.

H2 in my opinion will never be a fuel. H2 combined with C, the hydrocarbons, however are. H2 on its own is a very light gas, is very hard to store and even contain. The hydrocarbons on the other hand have very high power density, are liquid, can easily be stored and handled. Why separate the H2 out? It is a pure fuel also capacity wise while the hydrocarbons produce the necessary CO2 as needed for nature and plants. It is much better all around. H2 alone make no sense at all.

__________________
'The devil is in the detail'. Yes, but if the details are right the devil is on vacation.
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#43

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/28/2016 1:53 AM

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Guru

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Louisville, OH
Posts: 1062
#46

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/28/2016 12:03 PM

Problem is that Nature's time scale is centuries or millennia, not years or decades.

__________________
Lehman57
Power-User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 308
#39

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/26/2016 10:24 PM

To state that CO2 is the reason for climate change is one of the biggest lies spread around. CO2 weighs 1.5 times as much as air and stays mostly on the ground where it is needed for plant and food growth. Without CO2 we would all die of starvation. Thanks to the volcanoes we have sufficient CO2.

Besides, there is no iota proof that CO2 is bad. It is all hearsay. All the proof given is that it is a greenhouse gas so it must be the cause. First of all there are many other much more potent green house gases around even simple water vapour. And then consider the amount of CO2 in the air, it is now ~ 0.00004 parts of the atmosphere and that shall cause all the problems??? Get real.

CO2 has increased by 0.000005 parts over that last 50 years. Much larger changes have occurred in the past that cannot be blamed on man. Blaming the minute CO2 increase on climate change is totally ridiculous.

It is as much a lie as 'Fossil fuels' and 'Peak oil'.

Climates change all the time. They have in the past and will do so in the future. That is with or without man made CO2 that is relatively little and helps the environment and it is needed just like H2O. Both are fundamental and necessary building blocks or our nature.

__________________
'The devil is in the detail'. Yes, but if the details are right the devil is on vacation.
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1209
#44

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/28/2016 9:39 AM

CO2 has increased by 0.000005 parts over that last 50 years

???

In the 1970s the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 0.03% or 300 parts per million. It is now 400 ppm

Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#13

### Re: Which technology is the most cost effective?

06/24/2016 5:33 PM

Batteries are just a bridge technology leading to fuel cells....Using batteries now allows us to develop the electric vehicle in all other aspects, and continues reducing CO2 levels as we move forward....

Here's the bottom line...

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/education/pdfs/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 40071
#20

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 12:58 PM

I think the larger issue is which technology is more practical.

Hands down it's gas ICE.

If your \$100K Tesla runs out of juice in the middle of the Nevada desert, a gallon of gas won't help much.

Jump start? Nope!

You decided to buy a gas trimmer because you didn't think battery technology was mature.

Electric infrastructure is in its infancy also.

Given the total picture, cost to manufacture the cars, the batteries, provide infrastructure, cost to REPLACE battery modules after 5-10 years all say gas is more efficient.

Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#21

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 1:24 PM

If efficiency were the only goal I think we could do much better than an ICE....such as a fuel cell with a rankine cycle heat engine....

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/4/267/pdf

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 40071
#22

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 1:33 PM

Yes, if.

But this is still the real world.

You drive a Mustang.

I have 4 ICE vehicles, with no plans to go electric.

Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#30

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 2:36 PM

Yes, but we're old and set in our ways....ask kids what kind of car they want...or if they want a car at all...We were raised in a generation that worshipped the car, our grandchildren are being raised in the uber sustainable recycle generation, they worship sustainability...and phones

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
2
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19164
#31

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 3:41 PM

And free education because they make poor choices.

__________________
phoenix911
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19164
#23

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 1:35 PM

Recharging Technology still has a ways to go.

__________________
phoenix911
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 335
#24

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 1:47 PM

Typically true if you convert chemical-mechanical-electrical, total efficiency degrades along the process. But, consider if you source out free/renewable energy in the circuit, it would be at much cheaper cost and manageable to go electric.

Converting chemical (Fossil fuel) in a plant in bulk would assure that pollution is controlled and treated or removed in the equation as compared to individual vehicular pollution regulation.

ICE will soon be gone by next 50 years or so. I always taught kids, to invest more in electronics, because it seemed to be that we are heading that horizon nowadays.

__________________
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 40071
#25

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 1:51 PM

"ICE will soon be gone by next 50 years or so"

Never happen.

Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19164
#26

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 1:56 PM

Da Ja Vue from the sixties, same thing was said back than too.

__________________
phoenix911
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 335
#28

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 2:12 PM

Crude oil is not limitless and the demand of energy rise exponentially. There are more cars produced now in a day as compared to the 50's, likewise babies who would need cars by the next 18 years or so.

When oil is gone, the grass is greener and horses will rule.

ICE is a great innovation of Mr. Diesel but, lets face the fact, it is not built to last.

__________________
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Score 2 for Off Topic
2
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 40071
#29

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 2:22 PM

Every time the prediction that "oil will all be gone in 50 years" is made, another 100 year supply is discovered.

Guru

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancleave, Ms about 30 miles inland from Biloxi and the coast
Posts: 3088
#49

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/28/2016 3:02 PM

True! more cars are being produced today than in the 50's, but more cars are leaving the road and being scrapped. People think that we should be recycling more, but in reality; we are recycling much more than people realize. Recycling is a whole new industry in itself. I can't quote the actual figures, but aluminum for example is made from around 70% recycled scrap and the remainder is newly processed bauxite. The same is true of just about anything you can think of.

Some items that are being recycled:

• aluminum
• steel
• paper
• TV's
• batteries
• tires
• plastics
• glass
__________________
Mr.Ron from South Ms.
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 363
#27

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/25/2016 1:59 PM

To quote my late buddy M. King Hubbert, ''Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know.'', and while he may have gotten a lot of wiggle room on ''Peak Oil'', it is inevitable that in the not too distant future (a couple of generations from now?), those who chose to use what they know will say, ''By burning it, we not only bolloxed up our terrestrial biome, but we deprived ourselves of recyclable industrial feedstockl why did THEY do that for over 100 years?''

Power-User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 308
#40

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/26/2016 10:31 PM

Oil is a-bionic

__________________
'The devil is in the detail'. Yes, but if the details are right the devil is on vacation.
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain, and now disconnecting ["brexit" - ugh] as Little England and Wales (not too sure about Wales bit, either). Kettle's on.
Posts: 26794
#42

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/27/2016 4:12 PM

<...using oil to run a generator to charge batteries for use in an electric automobile...> The concept is nonsensical when there is so much wind, wave, solar and hydro about.

Do change up a gear...

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
The Engineer

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5072
#45

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/28/2016 9:40 AM

I'd love to switch over to an electric car, almost as much for the improved performance as for the improvement to the environment, but it doesn't seem like it will save me any money at this point. When it saves me money, then I'm on board.

Guru

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Louisville, OH
Posts: 1062
#47

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/28/2016 1:46 PM

Overall I have to go with SE. He is just a whole lot better than I at finding numbers to illustrate what is happening. The ICE is relatively inefficient at transforming energy into motion.

But I want to advocate for electricity being generated by fast nuclear reactors. Much better than thermal reactors in efficiency and other categories. Plus, electricity is pretty efficient and fairly easy to transport to where it is needed. And if someone complains about high tension transmission lines, the Small Modular Reactors offer a solution to that by generating electricity close to where it is needed.

Some time ago I read the e-book "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees. He suggested we consider using boron for something like car propulsion. I would have to dig out the book to see how this was proposed to work.

__________________
Lehman57
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#48

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/28/2016 2:56 PM

Yeah, I'm not on board with the boron....theoretically it could work, but too many negatives...A lot of people say hydrogen is not possible, some say it produces pollution through production methods...This is true using present methods, steam reforming from nat gas, but in future it could be carbon neutral and even someday produced via nuclear molecular dissociation from water, rendering a cheap and endless supply produced locally...

https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/13/prescription-for-the-planet-part-ii-newclear-energy-and-boron-powered-vehicles/

"Some prototype Generation IV reactors, such as the HTTR, operate at 850 to 1000 degrees Celsius, considerably hotter than existing commercial nuclear power plants. General Atomics predicts that hydrogen produced in a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) would cost \$1.53/kg. In 2003, steam reforming of natural gas yielded hydrogen at \$1.40/kg. At 2005 gas prices, hydrogen cost \$2.70/kg.[citation needed] Hence, just within the United States, a savings of tens of billions of dollars per year is possible with a nuclear-powered supply. Much of this savings would translate into reduced oil and natural gas imports.

One side benefit of a nuclear reactor that produces both electricity and hydrogen is that it can shift production between the two. For instance, the plant might produce electricity during the day and hydrogen at night, matching its electrical generation profile to the daily variation in demand. If the hydrogen can be produced economically, this scheme would compete favorably with existing grid energy storage schemes. What is more, there is sufficient hydrogen demand in the United States that all daily peak generation could be handled by such plants.[16]

Recent research on the hybrid thermoelectric Copper-chlorine cycle has focused on a cogeneration system using the waste heat from nuclear reactors, specifically the CANDUsupercritical water reactor.[17]"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 19496
#52

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

07/01/2016 4:09 PM

Uranium extraction from seawater seems to provide an endless and renewable source, making nuclear energy completely renewable...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#79a9d87646e2

__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving. A.E.
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wisconsin USA
Posts: 179
#50

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

06/30/2016 7:59 PM

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet (I may have missed it) is that the best sources of electrical generation (wind, solar, hydro and nuclear) are already operating at close to their existing capacity. It seems to me that any additional load on the grid by electric vehicles will most likely be taken up by increasing the output of the least desirable sources.

I think analyzing overall efficiency of electric vehicles using our existing mix of power generation is misleading because it does not take into account the fact that the increased load on the grid will have to be taken up by the least efficient sources. At least until additional infrastructure is built and that could take many years.

__________________
Troy
Guru

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Louisville, OH
Posts: 1062
#51

### Re: Which Technology Is The Most Cost Effective?

07/01/2016 9:41 AM

will have to be taken up by the least efficient sources. At least until additional infrastructure is built and that could take many years.

This is true, but I think he was asking about efficiency to know which way to jump for building new infrastructure. In my opinion, the best way to go is with fast nuclear reactors. They could be the heat source for existing coal plant generators and also use existing transmission lines. I think that wind and solar cannot obtain the capacity to meet the world's needs.

__________________
Lehman57
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to