I don’t usually go for political articles, but this one deserves mention for the wholesale idiocy about energy on display.
Don Monfort writes: Submitted on 2011/10/01 at 10:24 am
Sorry to stray off topic, but I was flabbergasted by something I just read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576602524023932438.html
The most flabbergasting part; our energy policy is based on fantasy:
When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”
The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”
America is still going to use oil in 5 years, but I’d rather it be domestic than foreign, wouldn’t you? Alternate technology takes time to develop and there’s zero chance we’ll all be driving electric vehicles in 5 years.
Obama said this when he was running for office:
Obama pledges to end oil dependency
Friday, August 29, 2008 (KGO ABC7 Television)
“I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years we will finally end our dependence on oil in the Middle East,” said Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama.
…
“If he means what it sounds like it means, it’s impossible,” said Stanford University Professor James Sweeney.
I guess we know what he meant by that now.
When the presidential limo becomes an electric vehicle, I’ll take his pledge seriously.
The vehicle fuel consumption is about 8 miles per gallon which on metric system corresponds to around 30 litres/100 km – source specs
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the author understood that it is the design of the left to destroy America and western society and that in order to do this they must cripple our economy and our ability to produce energy, the the author would not be surprised at all by Obama’s comments or actions.
“…we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon…”
That’s nonesense… Batteries store energy and have nothing to do with fuel efficiency, well, almost nothing. Internal resistence of the battery does play a minor role, but that’s about it.
Unless his car is in Ireland, where the wheels can spin all day but he goes knowhere
And of course what energy source would charge the battery up?!
“I don’t usually go for political articles,…….”
=========
I think you are just about to see why, your hesitation was justified 🙂
Gasoline has 34 MJ per liter and a typical car in the USA has between 30-35 mpg, or 9 mpl.
So we need a power density of 13×34 per liter; call it 440 MJ liter/Kg. Even if power density doubles every decade, we are 15-20 years away from such a device.
Electric cars 130mpg in 5 years? And what are we feeding power stations to generate those extra electricity, if not fossil fuels? We have a president that believed in unicorn and ‘Green’ magic dragon.
There is no design to destroy the West, just the not very bright advicing thr scientifically illiterate..
No plan to destroy the west, they genuinely beloeve they are doing good work. Saving the Planet
Look up The Peter Principle
Gee, in only five years we will be able to charge all those batteries with “green” energy and not coal………………..
..and the government is not only going to pay my mortgage, it’s going to buy me a new car
I have a great idea, let’s put as many people out of work as we possibly can, trash the housing market, regulate coal so it costs more, and then claim everyone can go out and buy new cars…..in the next five years because the government is busy building other sources of power.
How about if we talk everyone into believing that coal is bad and the government has to regulate/tax it..get everyone to driving electric cars so demand goes way up……..so the government makes more money
I want to see his electric Air Force One! Talk about a carbon trail … … …
As for Chu – he’s never run a business in his life. Has no concept of profit and loss, or how to balance them. Feh!
I only hope he keeps talking like this, he is a nincompoop.
The problem is not just ignorance, it’s stupidity (or maybe dishonesty)
What does it mean “that we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon” I wonder? I think the Princess Bride quote about that “word doesn’t mean what you think it means” is the case here
Batteries do not produce energy, they store it. The equivalent mileage of an electric car can only be determined by knowing how that stored energy (electricity) was produced and including the efficiency of generation, transmission and storage. All of these steps are are inefficient.
Using that criteria, battery powered cars will always (IMO) have lower MPG than gasoline powered cars of the same type (size, weight, function). Simply hauling around the heavy batteries and the huge losses in transmission and storage of electricity makes that almost an insurmountable disadvantage of electric cars.
Batteries improve incrementally, just a gasoline engines do. However, huge step changes in either the energy efficiency of either design is difficult to believe in.
Advocates of new technologies seem to always overlook the limitations that physics imposes on us. Is that due to ignorance, stupidity, or mendacity?
And the electricity for Mr Obama’s battery car will come from?
A battery car? Clean and green?
But, but, but . . . .. . .Where do they get the electricity from?
Do the batteries grow in fields?
Silly buggers.
Unless you are charging your battery directly from a local source, you are wasting about 40% of the source generated energy in grid transmission losses, no?
Barry Woods says:
“There is no design to destroy the West…”
If it has feathers, and walks like a duck, and quacks…
So he’s for clear cutting mountain tops to produce the coal necessary to run power plants to charge the car batteries?
So in five years all cars, trucks, motorcycles, ships, boats, planes and trains will run on electricity?
All plastics will be made from renewables, no houses will be heated with oil?
Oh wait, doing the math now, in five years…it’ll be someone else’s problem, gotcha 🙂
It doesn’t really seem like the guy knows what he’s talking about. And he’s the President of the US of A. Supposedly the most powerful bloke around (at least used to be). It worries me a wee little bit.
Besides, cars aren’t everything – you actually need electricity to power most stuff the economy might need, so developing some fancy-schmancy car batteries (which, as Mike has mentioned, do not affect fuel efficiency in any significant way) is not going to keep the lights on in New York. Building coal, gas and nuclear power stations is.
Ah yes, Stephen Chu. The guy “taking the blame” for the Solyndra debacle on account of he had no idea what he was doing.
I’m sure his word is golden, Barry.
Has anyone ever seen and battery operated 18-wheeler, locomotive, or passanger/cargo airplane?
There is more to transportation and just family cars.
“we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC”
As of July 2011, that would be about 4.9 million barrels per day. See link:
http://205.254.135.24/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
I would say that this is just about as much fantasy as replacing oil as our primary transportation fuel in 5 year. I am sure there are those who would like to believe we could produce those kind of numbers, but based on my experience as an oil explorer, I high doubt this is possible.
For those who say we can, I have a friendly challenge for you : tell us all specifically how & where you will do this , what price point is needed to bring that fuel to market & the implied capital expenditures to do so. Assume no regulatory hurdles or any other constraints – you have no constraints other that finding that production, developing it & bringing it to market. Be specific, Talk about rates from each region you would develop ; do not talk about reserves as that is irrelevant – tell us how you will bring 4.9 million barrels of oil per day from domestic sources to the market. And remember , I do this for a living – any arm waving or other unsupported rhetoric, I will raise the BS flag. I am looking forward to hearing supporters answers.
And I thought our Ozzie cousins were being led by an idiot……………….
@BarryWoods:
“Look up The Peter Principle”
Then rent the movie “Idiocracy.” It’s supposed to be set in the future, but we’re living it right now.
Let’s say , just for a moment, that these electric cars become mainstream with millions of them on the road daily. Will there then be a market for a commercial “electric filling station”? Let’s also say I decide to open an “electric filling station”. I buy grid electricity at current rates and sell it to travelers at a 20% mark up. The number of vehicles I can provide electricity for daily will depend on how many outlets I have and how long it takes each one to recharge. Can I make a decent living doing this? Will my markup need to be much higher? Will I be subject to a limited quota of electricity I can sell each day or can I hog as much as I want? Will I be allowed to generate my own electricity to sell, say via a small coal fired plant behind my business? Is anyone even thinking about this?
It seems some of the tax and spend commenter’s at WSJ missed the part about mailbox money that goes out to 10,000,000 royalty recipients, and were complaining it wasn’t fair to them whut don’t get none. This is above and beyond what 401K and other investments get from the oil industry, and is taxable, so the Gov’t get’s some also.
I think the above qualifies as wealth redistribution, so I can’t understand their beef.