Affordable 300 Mile Range Electric Vehicles Are Just Around the Corner

Your question in the last paragraph is a good one. I'd say the answer is that "they" want to keep us dependent on oil because it is just too profitable for "them". ;)

I agree with your conclusion, Denise. Keystone is about making themselves artificially "indispensible" for the forseeable future. Notice all the fossil ads lately?

You know very well why we are debating the pipeline. There's big money to be made via that pipeline. There's big money behind that project.

Larry. You think it's about money? You? ;) I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell ya'!

Well, Steve, there's a first time for everything. :-)

We have to get energy independent! It will take several decades MINIMUM to revamp our whole energy system. Until that time, which could be 60 years away, we will need oil. We cannot afford to send our money to OPEC that long. We just can't. Independence NOW!

Char. Keystone is not "independence". It's just changing our pusher. Last I heard, Canada is not a state.

"It will take several decades MINIMUM to revamp our whole energy system."

While that may be true, it is not necessary to "revamp our whole energy system" in order to achieve energy independence. An incremental approach will do just fine. We don't have to become 100% electric overnight. That said, the electrification of our cars might happen more quickly than you think. I just read a credible projection that 10% of our cars will be either hybrid or EV by 2015. Also, by 2015, Tesla Motors founder, Elon Musk, has said that an affordable, 300 mile range electric battery will be on the market. When electricity costs about 20% of what gas costs (at $3.50/gallon), how long do you think it will take for a transition to take place?

"Independence NOW!"

Char - I have Independence NOW! - ALREADY!

I have even heard the Keystone oil product will be exported. I have also heard much of our domestic production is currently tankard, taken outside inter lines and resold to us at import prices, that needs to be stopped! All that being said, we STILL need to approve the pipeline, because it means if OPEC cuts us off, or if they ally with someone we fight with, we will still have oil, here . ON our continent, with our friends, deliverable without tankers. Awesome! Even for "just in case" we should do it. that is how I feel.

Now you've hit on something really import-ant (pun intended). Oil is sold on the world market. Demand has reduced significantly in the U.S. over the last decade - but not the price. Ever wonder why? Multinational corporations do not have "our" interest at heart. The U.S. is just another country to them - no different than China or India, where demand is growing. If we don't get ourselves off oil, then we'll end up subsidizing economic growth in other countries - not necessarily our allies.

We have a choice to make. Electrification of our transportation is safer, quicker and cheaper than investments in oil projects, like keystone.

No, we have to up production. If we go to war, we will need oil to protect ourselves. It needs to be here. Sorry, I am not flexible on this, whether it is cheaper now, we need to up domestic production for security reasons, period. I really believe that is number one in this war torn world. Someone is going to take us on in our growing weakness.

If we remain on oil, Char, we will go to war. Oil is contributing significantly to our growing weakness. I'm sorry you are not "flexible" on this.

Why can't we be secure, and also reach for alternatives? Why are you against both? In what world do you think we can do everything we need to do with renewables? There are SO MANY things they are NOT going to do, probably ever. Certainly not in your lifetime. To think otherwise is naive, unless we go back to oxen or horse power, batteries are not going to do heavy lifting that the big diesels do hours and hours every day with free locomotion.

Have you bought into the consumer society they want to sell us, dependent on goods from afar?

"Certainly not in your lifetime."

Hermann Scheer fought and won the battle against that fossil "line" in Germany. Germany (yes, sunny Germany) now approaches 30% of their electricity from renewables, particularly solar.

The Energy Imperative: 100 Percent Renewable Now

"...unless we go back to oxen or horse power, batteries are not going to do heavy lifting that the big diesels do hours and hours every day with free locomotion."

Not sure that's true. After all, you just referred me to a great video about a guy, who has invented a giant battery. And I'm not sure at all that diesels are any more powerful that electric motors. They're certainly not as efficient. But even if you're right, there are biodiesels on the market now. Hemp is grown in Canada, but not here. Why not biodiesels from hemp - grown in the U.S.?

30% is FAR from sufficient. I submit, we need to up production now.

"Have you bought into the consumer society they want to sell us, dependent on goods from afar?"

One of the reasons I push this issue so strongly has to do with not being dependent on "goods from afar". Energy independence is an extremely important factor in our economic well-being. Importing oil, even from Canada, is not energy independence - and our economy still bleeds over $1billion/day. It doesn't make any difference if our pusher is the Saudis or the Canadians. Stop and think about it Char. Who is behind keystone? Koch Industries, Exxon, etc. In the meantime, a new solar panel manufacturing plant is opening within a mile from my home, with a new approach to panel production. Timber Creek Solar uses a fraction of the silicon to achieve the same efficiency, bring the cost of a watt of electricity down to $0.40, well below the cost of coal. It is our continued support of fossils that is hamstringing us in the global competition for dominance in renewables.

"30% is FAR from sufficient. I submit, we need to up production now."

30% more than demonstrates that your belief (100% renewable energy is not possible in our lifetime) is false. It depends on how dedicated or pursuit is, and on how distracted we become by continuing to sink limited resources in increasingly difficult-to-obtain fossils.

30% is not much with full effort. Think how well they are doing, economy wise. No way do we have the resources they have to subsidize it. I doubt we would reach that in 15 yrs.

"30% is not much with full effort."

Scheer had to fight the same fossil lobbies we do. He also had to fight a much more potent nuclear lobby there. His latest book was published posthumously (linked above), and shows how possible 100% is within a decade in Germany.

"No way do we have the resources they have to subsidize it."

Especially when we're subsidizing fossils.

"I doubt we would reach that in 15 yrs."

That's known as a "self-fulfilling prophecy". We don't think we can, and so we don't. In the meantime, we fall further behind our major competitors.

Before anyone gets to excited about Germany they should take this into account . I have taken the liberty of translating the report from Germa into English.

http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/studie-erneuerbare-machen-den-strom-deutlich-teurer/6577086.html




. DüsseldorfDie current energy policy is a recent study found that significantly more expensive. In 2020, the electricity consumers contribute 21.5 billion euros in costs caused by the transition to renewable energies. This has calculated the energy experts at McKinsey in a recent study by the Handelsblatt exclusive. That's 60 percent more than the 13.5 billion euros last year.

McKinsey has calculated how the transition to renewable energy sources by proposing to the current prices. The cost for one thing, the difference between the high price is paid to those from wind and solar power plants based on the Erneuebare Energy Sources Act (EEG), and include the price of electricity at the power exchange. On the other hand, the higher network charges are factored in, with which the additional lines needed to be financed. Overall, the cost of the 2011-2020 study found that add up to 175 billion euros .

The financial burden of the energy revolution are enormous," says McKinsey expert Thomas Vahlenkamp, "the main burden will bear the household." For them, the current price per kilowatt-hour forecast to 25.9 cents in 2011 to 29.0 cent in 2020 to climb. The proportion of the cost of the energy transition will increase from 4.2 to 6.3 cents. The industry in 2020 will be 14.7 (12.7) must pay a cent per kilowatt hour. Of these, 4.9 (3.5) cents of the cost of the energy transition.

Despite the best efforts of Germany, the study found that its ambitious climate change targets but do not reach effectively. The Government proposes that all emissions of climate-damaging CO2 by 2020, compared with a fall to 1990 levels by 40 percent. The consultants maintain and even in their most optimistic scenario, a reduction of 31 percent is realistic - which Germany would still be world leader. Unlike the federal government holds McKinsey a decline in electricity demand is unrealistic. The consultants even predict that the demand increases by 0.3 to 0.4 percent per year.

Especially if the vehicles are all going electric. That sounds like the cost of electric cars will be higher to fuel than if they were gas vehicles. You know OPEC will pump like crazy, and drop the price to make them back off the conversion. THAT is exactly why the independence has to come first, Steve. Don't you see that, otherwise they will keep making it cost too much and it will never get done!!! Pound foolish and penny wise with your CO2. More ring around the rosy laps.

Thank you Graham!

Scheer, linked above, takes note of the opposition to renewables in his country.

"It is not unusual for new technologies to be met with erroneous assessments which later sound unbelievable. They are part and parcel of our political, economic and technological history, and are expressions of the pessimism typical of experts with traditional outlooks."

Scheer, Hermann (2011-12-16). The Energy Imperative: 100 Percent Renewable Now (Kindle Locations 797-799). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

"Thank you Graham!"

LOL... - and from another thread...,

"Steve, Let me ask you something. Do YOU own First Solar, or other climate sensitive stocks? How about Chevrolet? Just wondering, let's have some fair disclosure here... "

LOL....

Steve, Why is it funny? Don't you see, if you have independence, that is the only way to be sure it is followed through? Don't you think the translation of the document actually matters. What is so funny, really? I wasn't trying to be nasty. I merely asked if you put your money into renewables.

Speaking of the finances, they're paying the credit fees, the energy credit scheme. They have the board all set up, guess where, in CHICAGO, where else?

"Why is it funny?"

Just poking fun at your bias, Char. Nothing serious.

"...if you have independence, that is the only way to be sure it is followed through?"

I think we differ on our respective definitions of "independence".

Thanks for the article, Steve.