Gasoline prices in the USA.

**Darian** · 06-16-2008, 08:21 PM

OK,.... I was trying to avoid commenting on this one but feel I have to ask a couple of questions. If all of the current electric power is generated thru nuclear power generation, burning of fossil fuels, natural geothermal (steam) and hydroelectric (dams, etc.), and all of the available power is committed each day over the course of a year, how will we fill the additional capacity required to charge/re-charge all of those electric powered vehicles using current sources

People in California do not want any more dams built and are advocating removal of existing dams. I don't see any chance of demand being reduced; more likely demand will increase even if the wonderful electric automobiles weren't a possibility.

As far as storage of spent nuclear fuel goes, Rancho Seco (even closed) is not the only nuclear power generating station in California. There're two others. San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. All three of these facilities have stored spent fuel rods on their own premises; apparently without incident. Now, I've not always been an advocate of nuclear power but am not ready to close my mind to any alternative.

In reading up on the subject, virtually all of the problems encountered in generation of power thru nuclear facilities has been associated with the people who manage or run these stations. HUMAN ERROR.

**BigBill** · 06-16-2008, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Darian

If all of the current electric power is generated thru nuclear power generation, burning of fossil fuels, natural geothermal (steam) and hydroelectric (dams, etc.), and all of the available power is committed each day over the course of a year, how will we fill the additional capacity required to charge/re-charge all of those electric powered vehicles using current sources

Not everyone is going to rush out and buy an electric car all at once. It would be a gradual process. And as the technology evolved, we would expand our current natural RENEWABLE energy sources (Wind/Sun) to meet demand.

Originally Posted by Darian

As far as storage of spent nuclear fuel goes, Rancho Seco (even closed) is not the only nuclear power generating station in California. There're two others. San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. All three of these facilities have stored spent fuel rods on their own premises; apparently without incident. Now, I've not always been an advocate of nuclear power but am not ready to close my mind to any alternative.

In reading up on the subject, virtually all of the problems encountered in generation of power thru nuclear facilities has been associated with the people who manage or run these stations. HUMAN ERROR.

Bottom line, Nuclear power kills you instantly, Coal power kills you over time. Why mess with either one when we don't have to?

**Darian** · 06-17-2008, 08:31 AM

I like Tristan's answer. Reduce demand. IMHO, given population increase and peoples propensity to consume, that's not likely to happen anytime soon, tho. Unfortunately, it seems that the only way to reduce consumption/demand is to reduce the supply of credit/money for spending. in other words, recession.

bigbill, I can't disagree with your premise that change to electric cars will occur gradually and over a period of time. However, demand is already increasing rapidly for hybrids and electrical vehicles along with every other alternative to diesel and gasoline powered vehicles due to high fuel prices. Population will increase rapidly whether we like it or not; contributing to increased demand. Public transportation hasn't really caught on in California, yet. Where it has, light rail cars require electric power. So, I'm unconvinced that your thought will occur in the lengthy timeframe you envision (....yours is longer than mine for the same activity). IMHO, increasing demand for power is here already and will continue to expand. Power generation must expand to meet the need and alternative methods are not up to the demand, yet.

Until technological advancements and capacity catch up to reality, I'm for keeping all options open.

**Bill Kiene semi-retired** · 06-17-2008, 08:49 AM

New Honda hydrogen powered cars?

http://world.honda.com/news/2008/408...on-Green-Cars/

**BigBill** · 06-17-2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Tristan

The most simple answer is to get by with less, but many, including people here, are unwilling to do so.

Use less, abuse less. The same holds true for water.....

Downgrade the hummer, turn off the lights when not in use, bump the temp up on the AC, buy more local and sustainable produce, reduce water consumption....its pretty simple really.

Everyone always seems to think that there is an unlimited supply of everything...

Which is why expensive gas is a GOOD thing. People wont change their lifestyles unless you hit em in their wallets! Watch how fast alternative/renewable power and fuel technology research takes off when gas hits $6 a gallon nation wide by the end of this summer. Also, watch how rapidly the number of gas guzzlers on the road decreases. I sold my Pathfinder and bought an Outback as soon as gas hit $3 a gallon.

**flyfshrmn** · 06-17-2008, 04:31 PM

Darian,

You wondered where the additional capacity for electric vehicles would come from. Solar panel technology is getting better and gaining efficiency every year. Right now, it's possible to buy and install a home solar electric system that will provide 80-90 percent of your annual needs in most of the West and Southwest. Not enough people are doing that. And if you had a plug in hybrid, it could be connected directly to the system. Plug in hybrids are not being made nor do many of the Big Car companies appear to have plans or prototypes in the works.

Instead of treating this as a crisis, we should be looking at it as an opportunity. It's been obvious to any one who's been paying attention, that we cannot sustain our current fuel usage patterns without destroying the planet and secondarily, the whole world economy. Global warming is a fact and so is the economic reality of increasing population, increasing wealth in other nations, and increased demand for fuel. What's lagging behind is developing and putting in place new technology to meet the demands and changes. And the technology is there - right now, without any new development, it's possible to put 100 mpg diesel electric hybrids on the road. But there aren't any in production or even in advanced planning stages. And those cars could and should run on biofuels. But we have no structure for the production and distribution of biofuels and a lot of misinformation and resistance to implementation.

A lot of capacity can be gained immediately, as others have already pointed out, by simple conservation methods. One of the simplest is just replacing all the incandescent light bulbs in your house with CFLs. It's a change that's going to happen anyway, because in four more years you won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs in California. And there are other, even more efficient lighting sources that can be developed. Unfortunately, in order for paradigm changes to occur, we need very high economic pressures. And the paradigms that need to be changed have a lot of inertia - Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Car. There's going to have to be political as well as economic paradigm shifts. And these changes are going to occur - either under direct economic pressure or through environmental pressure as we continue to degrade our planet by burning fossil fuels and adding to the global warming problems. And no matter what, in the short term, we are all going to take a hit in the pocketbook.

If you want to see real progress, write - write your reps, write the power companies, write letters to the editor, write the governor. It's no different than working on conservation issues that are raised in this forum every day. Be a voice, a squeaky wheel, a critic, an activist, God forbid, be an environmentalist - whatever melts your butter.

**Darian** · 06-17-2008, 08:41 PM

OK,.... I see all of the optomistic, standard answers to complex questions here and acknowledge that technology exists already. However, I disagree that many alternative power sources are cost effective and, specifically, solar power generation was recently reported that, in residential applications, it does not pay for itself over a 20 year period. Also, the prospect of solar panels/giant wind mills all over the desserts/mountains of CA doesn't excite me or wildlife I imagine.

Plug-in vehicles just increase demand to consume ever more electrical power. One of the reasons that all of these high MPG auto's/trucks are not on the road at present is that they are very high priced. Again, cost is a factor. People do not support activities or products that are high cost when there is a lower cost alternative; even if it's not environmentally sound. Most of us are living high on Maslou's Hierarchy of Needs pyramid or we wouldn't be debating these issues endlessly. I'm sure how this discussion would be viewed in South Central LA, Hunters Point, East Palo Alto and other Barrios/Ghettos throughout CA and the rest of the US.....

Political reality is reflected in a Cable news article reported on June 10th that a proposed increase in taxes on "unreasonable" oil profits was rejected in the Senate of the US. In defending the rejection, one Senator was quoted as saying that, ".... The bill will raise taxes (duh!!!), increase imports." (duh!!! added). The article, also, reported that support for extending tax incentives for alternative fuel/power development failed passage. The current Republican candidate is advocating opening the US coastlines to oil exploration/drilling (a position that he opposed in the past).

With thinking like that, what hope do we have of any of the alternatives coming into reality until all of the fossil fuels are depleted. Let's get real folks, it's not in industries interest to do what we want. As Mr. Rockerfeller once said while head of Standard Oil, "The business of America is business."

Get out there and buy oil futures/stocks....

**Phil Synhorst** · 06-17-2008, 09:52 PM

Here's a good laugh. This conversation would not be ongoing were it not for the "Gipper".

While Carter may not be seen as one of the greatest Presidents, he forsaw this pile of c...p we're in nearly 30 years ago. He instituted an energy plan that would have had us using no more oil than we did in '77', research was being done on alternative energies, he even had the White House running on solar energy. Good ol' Ronnie came in and killed that real quick!

Heck, had Carter's plan gone on, gas burners could probably be something that we keep in the garage under a cover for nostalgia sake. You know, show the grand kids every now and then, reinvent our grandparents stories of walking to school barefoot, in the snow, up hill both ways kinda thing.

One last thought. What did we expect putting a bunch of oil people into the most powerful positions in the "Free World"?

**flyfshrmn** · 06-17-2008, 10:03 PM

Darian,

I don't know where you're getting your info. Neither the questions nor the answers are that complex. The payback on a residential solar system with current incentives and tax credits, at current electric rates, varies between 7 and 15 years, depending on size and payment options, without figuring the enhanced resale value. That's for a residential system with net metering hooked to the grid. If, in fact, the power companies credited owners with all the power generated from such systems, the payback time would be far less.

That is for currently available solar panels with net efficiencies in the 30 to 35% range. There's a good deal of evidence that panels may see efficiency gains of up to 10% in the near future.

The same thing applies to cars. The available technology, right now, is capable of putting out 100 mpg vehicles without using fossil fuels. Plug in hybrids will add to the current electric requirements, but the efficiency of running an electrical vehicle vs. a fossil fueled one is exponential. But no one is building these cars for reasons that have nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with politics, inertia, and greed.

The major stumbling block to wind generation is not capacity. Even now, much of the available capacity in California is not used because there are not sufficient grid connections. That's political and economic blockage and has nothing to do with the technology. And the capacity to build large wind generators has died, because the political situation has removed the incentives for manufacturing of such systems where the economy of scale would make them profitable. The ecological effects of windmills on bird populations have been vastly overblown. More birds are killed in a week by cars and farm machinery than windmills kill in a century.

My contention is simple: the technology to solve our current problems with energy supplies and fuel exists right now. What's preventing it from being implemented is ignorance, greed, political and economic inertia, fear and stupidity. What is certain, is that if we do nothing, things will only get worse. There will be problems with converting our extant paradigms, but there will be much worse problems if we stand pat and sell our country to OPEC drop by ever more expensive drop of oil.