Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. :-) |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sloco & Doug: Dumb and Dumberer | ASA | |||
Help for Doug | ASA | |||
Add it up, Doug! | ASA | |||
Yo - Don White and Doug King... | General | |||
Doug King is ignorant. | ASA |