Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
More fuel for the fire.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...//16012061.htm

Sorry for the bad pun. :)

Sounds to me like another "global warming isn't really
happening" type pitch.

Maybe he's right, in which case oil production will zoom
upward again as new undiscovered rich fields come on line.

We'll see.

DSK

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I saw a interesting report on CNBC this afternoon by the Cambridge
Energy Research Association which was startling because after some
statistical analysis, they basically said that production in 2005 in
the Lower 48 in the United States was 66 percent higher than Hubbert
projected.


Which is good.

One thing I have suspected for some time is that the
consumption curve for any vital resource tends to skew one
way or the other. It's the supply/demand thing, but not
necessarily dependent on price.

As oil tends get more expensive, people have less tendency
to expend it profligately. This ratchets down the amount
demanded, and X billion barrels last longer. Then there are
other non-economic downward pressure on demand: growing
public awareness that oil won't last forever, some of the
other negative effects (pollution), substitution of
alternatives, constraints on consumption (how many cars can
you drive at once), etc etc. In looking at demand for U.S.
domestic oil, obviously foreign oil will be substitued for
it under many conditions.

So domestic U.S. is not being used up quite as fast as
Hubbert predicted... good news, but not necessarily a sign
that Hubbert was all wrong.

Remember, I'm not one of the doom-n-gloomers predicting the
end of civilization. I *do* think that the era of cheap
energy is over (until we develop fusion). Unfortunately that
also means that the era of ever-cheaper transport is over.

We are on the brink of some new basic economic paradigms...
finally we'll get to see what comes after the Industrial
Revolution.... or can we pick what's behind Door #3?



I don't know - I just want to get moving in the area of biomass fuels,
diesel/electric technologies and passive generation like solar, wave
and wind.


The country that moves it's energy demand OFF oil
consumption will rule the future economically. That's why
the Japanese fusion project(s) worry me more than North
Korean nukes.


If we can get around the NIMBY crowd that is.

Hell, until it's proven better & cleaner in the long run,
I'm a NIMBY myself.

DSK

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:22:44 -0500, DSK wrote:

Remember, I'm not one of the doom-n-gloomers predicting the
end of civilization. I *do* think that the era of cheap
energy is over (until we develop fusion). Unfortunately that
also means that the era of ever-cheaper transport is over.

Not necessarily in my opinion. Two things need to happen:

1. New/better/cheaper ways of making electricity, e.g., fusion,
solar, tidal, wind, whatever.

2. New/better battery technology with lighter weight, faster recharge
and longer cycle life.

These guys appear to be really on to something new with batteries:

http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html

Since I've become a significant stockholder recently, let's hope it
works out. I was on a conference call with senior management a week
ago and was impressed with their expertise and business plan.

I'd love to beta test some of those batteries on the boat but fat
chance. :-)

Remember, I'm not one of the doom-n-gloomers predicting the
end of civilization. I *do* think that the era of cheap
energy is over (until we develop fusion). Unfortunately that
also means that the era of ever-cheaper transport is over.


Wayne.B wrote:
Not necessarily in my opinion. Two things need to happen:

1. New/better/cheaper ways of making electricity, e.g., fusion,
solar, tidal, wind, whatever.

2. New/better battery technology with lighter weight, faster recharge
and longer cycle life.


Primarily lighter.


These guys appear to be really on to something new with batteries:

http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html


Impressive. I don't know half of what their talking about
though. Must be pretty cool!

Since I've become a significant stockholder recently, let's hope it
works out. I was on a conference call with senior management a week
ago and was impressed with their expertise and business plan.

I'd love to beta test some of those batteries on the boat but fat
chance. :-)



Looks pretty good BUT if their graph is accurate, their
batteries pack almost 1/6 as much energy per pound as
gasoline. That means you'd have to settle for 1/6the range
or about 1/12 the speed or about 1/144 the acceleration of a
normal car, if powered by one of these batteries.

Therein lies the grim tale of non-fossil fuel vehicles. For
stationary power (or very slow moving power), no prob. If
you want speed & accelration, you gotta have lightness.
Shucks, *coal* still packs about 3x the power per pound as
these new nanotech batteries!

Now let's talk about dollars per watt per kilogram, and
you'll see that petro fuels will have to climb a long way
before these things become viable as a commercial power
source for vehicles. But hey, I can think of a gazillion
other uses for them!

DSK

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:08:37 -0500, DSK wrote:


Therein lies the grim tale of non-fossil fuel vehicles. For
stationary power (or very slow moving power), no prob. If
you want speed & accelration, you gotta have lightness.

Yup, but batteries aren't the only way to save weight. I'm sure you have
heard of the EV1. It did 0-60 in 8 seconds, and was *limited* to 80 mph,
although modified it made it to 183 mph, not bad, considering the
electric car's limited development. Clearly, it's range wouldn't meet
everyone's need in a car, but ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Interesting....

http://www.greencarcongress.com/conf...nts/index.html



thunder wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:08:37 -0500, DSK wrote:


Therein lies the grim tale of non-fossil fuel vehicles. For
stationary power (or very slow moving power), no prob. If
you want speed & accelration, you gotta have lightness.

Yup, but batteries aren't the only way to save weight. I'm sure you have
heard of the EV1. It did 0-60 in 8 seconds, and was *limited* to 80 mph,
although modified it made it to 183 mph, not bad, considering the
electric car's limited development. Clearly, it's range wouldn't meet
everyone's need in a car, but ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:51:19 -0800, tschnautz wrote:

Interesting....

http://www.greencarcongress.com/conf...nts/index.html

Damn, 10,705 mpg, pretty impressive. I haven't been following the
developments in green cars. Perhaps, they'll be in our future sooner,
rather than later.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:08:37 -0500, DSK wrote:

Looks pretty good BUT if their graph is accurate, their
batteries pack almost 1/6 as much energy per pound as
gasoline. That means you'd have to settle for 1/6the range
or about 1/12 the speed or about 1/144 the acceleration of a
normal car, if powered by one of these batteries.

We'll see, the early prototypes look very good:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061107/20061107005071.html?.v=1


http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061107/20061107005720.html?.v=1

There are lots of good reasons why gasoline and diesel have become the
motor fuel of choice but electric may be catching up.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:28:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

If they ever want to beta test a couple of type 27 trolling motor
battery with an experienced fisherman, let me know. :)

Right after I get my (8) T-105s.

Wayne.B wrote:


There are lots of good reasons why gasoline and diesel have become the
motor fuel of choice but electric may be catching up.

They are coming
Check out
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4201003.html
and
http://www.commutercars.com/ next 3 links are specs

http://www.commutercars.com/features600.php

http://www.commutercars.com/features200.php

http://www.commutercars.com/features100.php

ZAP!
Wonder what a 2,000 amp 600 kilowatt motor costs these days?
Install a fuel converter that takes your diesel, and changes it into
hydrogen for your fuel cell and spark your way up the coast! You will
be generating water as a byproduct, so give the watermaker a break!
Fuel cells are up to 80% effecient now.
oops I think I am rambling.
Den Uni48YF