The Chrysler Minivan Fan Club Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
From the Feb 20 2006 NEVC newsletter:

- information obtained from the National Association of Convenience Stores press release

HOUSTON, TX -- According to ExxonMobil, the United States will never be independent from foreign oil to fulfill its energy needs, reports Reuters.

On February 7, ExxonMobil Senior Vice President Stuart McGill commented that America should stop trying to become energy independent.

“Realistically, it is simply not feasible in any time period relevant to our discussion today,” McGill said during an energy conference in Houston, referring to what he calls “the misperception” that the United States can free itself from foreign oil. While ExxonMobil says ending foreign oil imports is not only a “bad idea,” it says it would also be impossible.

“Americans depend upon imports to fill the gap,” said McGill, adding, “No combination of conservation measures, alternative energy sources and technological advances could realistically and economically provide a way to completely replace those imports in the short or medium term.”

McGill suggested that the United States “should be promoting energy interdependence.”

“Because we are all contributing to and drawing from the same pool of oil,” he said, “all nations--exporting and importing--are inextricably bound to one another in the energy marketplace.”

According to Reuters, “many in the United States” believe America should “wean itself” from Middle Eastern oil imports, citing fear of making the United States “dangerously dependent” on its resources from an unstable foreign region.

Canada is the largest importer of crude oil to the United States. For more statistics on the petroleum industry, click here to view the NACS fact sheet, “The U.S. Petroleum Industry: Statistics, Definitions,” which is part of the 2006 NACS Gas Price Kit.

NEVC note: The U.S. imported almost 5 million barrels of oil in 2005. Is it really a good idea to spend our money overseas instead of keeping it at home?
 

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It's truly comical to read a statement from a big oil company claiming that we should quit trying to conserve and accept that we'll just import petroleum forever.
 

·
Senior Global Moderator
Joined
·
2,800 Posts
Well, they are right that it is highly unlikely we will ever be independent for petroleum products. Look at the hoops the EPA makes "Big Oil" jump through to get permission to drill, build refineries, etc.... That doesn't evn begin to start with covering all of the independent local legislation that goes on when an organization or group finds out that "Big Oil" wants to drill in their back yard or something of the like. As long as we have the NIMBY problem, we will ALWAYS be importing our oil from nations who aren't so hung up on it.

However, ExxonMobil's mistake here is that they are assuming there are no other alternative energy sources in the forseeable future. They don't account for things like the spread of E85 and biodiesel, and fuel cell technology on the horizon. True, we will probably never be independent, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to be as independent as possible.
 

·
Old-er motorhead
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
jazztrumpet216 said:
ExxonMobil's mistake here is that they are assuming there are no other alternative energy sources in the forseeable future. They don't account for things like the spread of E85 and biodiesel, and fuel cell technology on the horizon. True, we will probably never be independent, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to be as independent as possible.
Very true - EM has their blinders on! INHO the Agra-industry might split up BIG OIL's gravy train...
 

·
Sexy Pirate
Joined
·
481 Posts
They say we'll never have the technology to be independent about fossil fuel energy...

Bill gates also said we'd never need more than 640 K of RAM in our computers. Look where technology got us!
 

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
jazztrumpet216 said:
True, we will probably never be independent, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to be as independent as possible.
Right on brutha. If we focus on the roadblocks, we'll never be able to move around them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Battery electrics could make us independant inside of 10 years. Problem is oil companies would lose there shirts and the sweet profits would go poof for the auto industry.

So yeah there going to do everything they can to stop it. Well too bad for the scumbags that battery patent your beating us over the head with expires in 2015. Your gonna die shortly thereafter.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Battery electrics could make us independant inside of 10 years. Problem is oil companies would lose there shirts and the sweet profits would go poof for the auto industry.

So yeah there going to do everything they can to stop it. Well too bad for the scumbags that battery patent your beating us over the head with expires in 2015. Your gonna die shortly thereafter.


Electricity still requires energy to make. That has been the fallacy of electric cars this whole time. Plug in the cars, suddenly you need to burn more coal, natural gas, or build more nukes to power them up. That's what makes the hybrid technology so great, you have your power source right there. I bet if you drive a hybrid right, you don't need the gas motor much. I'd like to try it sometime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Alas you are not correct IAfarmer.

Battery Electric cars consume LESS electricity than Gasoline cars. IE our net grid usage would go DOWN not UP. This is what they try to hide.

You see we use massive amounts of electricity to put gasoline in your car. I mean it does not get there by fairy dust? Those Pumps that gas station the lights the billboards the signs the everything associated with them.

The TRUCKS to get the gasoline TO the gas station.

All of that goes away when we switch to Battery Electrics.

On top of this most people ignore the ultra obvious with battery electrics. For most people ZERO grid power overall will be used to power the cars.

$2600 is what it takes to be fuel free. $1600 for the grid tie in and $1000 for a solar panel from "Nano Solar" once there selling to consumers.

That solar panel will produce more watts each month and sell them back to the utility company than you will USE each month charging your car. I personally would need about a $1500 panel but I drive more than twice as much as the average person.

People in areas with better sunlight might be able to get away with a $500 panel. I figured for a panel where I live in the North East in Pennsylvania.

SO NO battery electrics will NOT increase the load on the grid NO we will not need more power plants. Those are myths promulgated by big oil and big auto.

Hybrids are a waste of money when it comes to saving gas. Compare a $24,000 Prius to a $10,000 35mpg Kia and the prius will NEVER EVER save enough in gas to even equal its increased dollar cost.

Just to break even I would have to drive that car for some 38 YEARS (and thats at MY high mileage usage) thats just to break even!!!

Sure if your already spending $24k on a car then sure the prius is a nice option but if your objective is solely to save MONEY on gasoline its the worst thing you can do.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells are a pure and total rip off. Hydrogen will be SOLD to you at the equivalent of $7 to $8 a gallon and get the equivalent of 35mpg. Now you know why they want hydrogen fuel cells so badly.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are actually ELECTRIC CARS but they have removed the consumer friendly battery pack and replaced it with an inefficient corporate friendly fuel cell. Cute. No thanks. There not very efficient either. If we look at Efficiency from the GRID to the "fuel tank" Electric Cars are 86% efficient while Fuel Cells are only 25% efficient. It takes more than 3 times the power to go the same mile in a Fuel Cell versus an electric car because of how inefficient the hydrogen generation and transport process is.

And saying things require energy to make just makes my blood boil. I hear that argument all the time. This or that can not work because you have to put more energy IN than you can get out of it.

Ahh clue in (just for those folks who say that) More energy in than you get out to the best of our knowledge is a PHYSICAL LAW OF THE UNIVERSE.

It applies to EVERY SINGLE energy transfer known to man. WALKING takes more energy in than you get out. CYCLING more in than out. Gasoline MORE IN than OUT. Hydrogen Battery electrics WIND power SOLAR power ZERO POINT ENERGY you name it they will ALL take MORE energy in than out. Its called entropy folks.

How much energy it consumes it irrelevant. HOW MANY DOLLARS it costs is whats relevant.

You see with battery electrics and ONLY battery electrics something interesting happens. I CAN GENERATE MY OWN ELECTRICITY. I do not "have" to buy it from someone else (which is why they HATE it so much) can not make your own gasoline easily or even remotely for most people and hydrogen even if they do not regulate it so you can not (and they will) good luck finding an affordable way to store and PUMP it. any idea what a 10,000 PSI compressor costs? probably more than your car.

Battery electrics will be CHEAP long lasting virtually maintenance free which is why they SCARE the crap out of the industries so much.

I find it interesting that the Chevy Volt has a 40mile electric range. First GM already made an electric car that could do 150 miles on a charge so this is a massive downgrade from that over 10 years ago.

Second that specific number nagged at me. 40 miles whats so special about 40 miles somethings WRONG with that number.

Then it hit me like a sack of bricks. Go hit google and austin ev etc.. Look at the "typical" range of your average home made lead acid electric car.

How fascinating its about 40 miles (35-45 miles) I do ""NOT"" believe in coincidences.

They INTENTIONALLY limited the range to 40 miles. They did not want it to be any better than any other electric car on the road today (the homebuilts) so they could say SEE we tried its all its got. etc.. etc.. its a stop gap measure to give them time to finish the lucrative Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars.

Why not dispose of the expensive and prone to failure generator and its 12 gallon gas tank and toss in a second battery 80miles would be GOOD ENOUGH for 90% of us.

My daily commute is 54miles ONE WAY. 80 miles is more than enough for me. Drive to work plug in Drive home plug in.

I drive 30,000 miles a year on average. Sometimes a lot more. There are years where I pushed 65,000 miles (thats how I got 465,000 miles on my cherokee)

At 30,000 miles a NIMH powered (lithium is a little less efficient to charge so almost twice this value for lithium) a nimh powered electric car would only cost me $300 a year in electricity is I did NO SOLAR and just plugged into the grid.

If you ran a small 1500 watt electric heater 12 hours a day for 2 months you would use that much electricity. Are you seriously telling me that little bit of power is even going to make the grid BLINK (keeping in mind thats a YEARS worth of power for the car)

Your average american is going to use HALF that or under $150 a YEAR in electricity for there car. How long does it take you to dump $150 in gas into your car? takes me less than 2 weeks even at the $2.89 cost of gasoline right now.

There are NO downsides to electric cars that are not purely artificial. There is NO reason they can not build and sell a 100mile range 4 seater for under $12k except for greed.

Do you know what a $12,000 electric car would cost me out of pocket? Nothing. Not one cent. Why? Do the math on what the monthly LOAN payment is on a $12,000 car even without any form of downpayment. Now look at how much you spent last month on gasoline.

Nuff Said.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Past my time limit for editing so here is the rest of the message

Let me give you an example of how Battery Electrics could fundimentally change our very society for the better.

UPS paid $1,000,000 (million) dollars to a software engineering firm to design them new ROUTING software for there little brown trucks.

The objective? To Avoid Left Turns. This was becasue left turns were more dangerous and more importantly TOOK LONGER. longer times mean fewer drops per route ie less money.

Well it worked like a dream but there was an interesting side effect. In the first year of using this software they saved more than THREE MILLION DOLLARS in gasoline!!!

Just avoiding left turns. Now the first thing to go through my head was not WOW saved 3 million dollars in gas impressive as it it. It was WOW just how much do they spend overall in gasoline a year if just avoiding left turns can save them $3 Million bucks!

Imagine if they made all there trucks battery electrics. Covered there Building with solar panels. Just imagine that for a moment.

Battery electrics would literally change the world as we know it. Doomsayers say it would ruin the economy.

Well there right but not the way you think. Battery Electrics would both RUIN the economy and also SAVE the economy and start a new golden age in america.

How? well easy there are TWO economies in play here. You have the Economy of the top 2% and you have the economy of the lower 90% of us.

The Economy of the top 2% would go splat. The Economy of the lower 90% of us would Explode into a new golden age. I even foresee the potential for Battery Electrics to virtually eliminate unemployment. Think about it. Business could now afford to massive expand operations just because they will not have to pay for FUEL any longer. Remember even if you have NO cars your still paying for FUEL its built into the price of everything you pay for and there is NOTHING that does not have fuel as part of its cost.

Needless to say the top 2% would prefer not to see this happen.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
You are telling me that it takes that much electricity to refine gasoline? Sorry, if that were the case, gasoline would be a net loss in the end, however, it produces more in the end than it uses. If everyone used electric cars, we would quickly be using more electricity than it takes to refine and sell gasoline.

I agree that hybrids are more hype than true savings, UNLESS, your family requires the use of a giant SUV to move around. THEN the SUV hybrid makes sense. The little ones are feel good. Still, if I can change my driving habits and get 2 more mpg out of the van, I bet I could get some phenomenal mileage out of a hybrid by trying to keep the motor from starting at all.

Solar doesn't work well here in the MIdwest. I really don't like the looks of all the wind turbines clogging up the view of open land either. Yes, our sky is blue and our frogs only have 4 legs. It isn't as bad as the naysayers of the world want you to think.

You have inspired me to do a bit more reading here. Thank you for that inspiration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Actually I am not including the electricity to REFINE the gasoline since I believe they generate there OWN power to do that IE they are not GRID tied for there power to do the refining (can someone clarify that?)

you only need about 8000 watts to move a car 100 miles. Do the math. thats NOT a lot of power. (if you use NIMH cells)

That pump at the gas stations takes power. Those trucks moving the tanks of gasoline around produce pollution. Those bill boards take power those TV ads take power etc.. etc.. etc.. much of that becomes superfluous with electric cars.

You would see far fewer gas stations (and all the power they consume goes poof) because more people would charge at home. Only people who need to go beyond the range of there charge would have to goto a "gas" station to recharge (and with improved battery tech could do so in LESS than 10 minutes 5-8 minutes to 90% charge IIRC)

Solar would work FINE in the midwest my man. Trust me. You just use a LARGER panel if you get less light. Thats all. at the 90cents a watt that nano solar is charging SO WHAT so put a $1500 panel up or a $2000 watt panel.

Either way it will not cost much to add an array to your roof that WILL generate more watts each month than you will use charging your car.

Remember your NOT charging the car via solar. Thats just not going to work. it would take a $10 to $15 THOUSAND dollar panel to do that and would only work in daylight.

but "any" solar panel will generate SOME power from sun up to sun down thats 8-10 hours every single day. Just take the number of hours of sunlight in a month and divide that by the watts you need. NOW double that number so you have a safety margin for bad light winter months clouds rain etc..

There you go. you "sell" that power back to the utility (currently 42 states have buy back) all you need to do is generate MORE power each month than you "use" charging you car for a net power usage of ZERO.

Zero Cost Zero Load Zero Pollution. There is no downside. 10 YEARS ago these batteries were made to last 250,000 + miles and are fully recyclable and only cost $4500 per pack. so every 250,000 miles you put another $4500 battery into the car and this ignores the cost reductions that will happen from mass production and adoption.

The problem is those batteries are illegal GM sold the patent to chevron and chevron obviously refuses to license the patent.

WHY do you think mercedes announced they will be petrol free by 2015 as have many other manufacturers around 2015. Well its because they know once that patent expires and chevron can NOT stop the battery from being produced they will not have a choice.

Thats why I can not wait till 2015. I am counting the days till I can BURN the auto makers to the ground and love every second of it since THEY did this out of greed.

you see electric cars are insanely simply. goto a hobby shop and look inside a normal RC car (hobby grade not consumer crap from walmart)

you will see 4 components. Motor, Battery, Speed Control, Charger, Reciever (that last one is YOU the driver so 4 other components)

Well when you make an electric scooter its the same 4 parts. An electric car same 4 parts an electric Semi Truck the SAME 4 parts.

its really that simple. Note 3 of those 4 parts are "solid state" and by nature of the massive amps they have to pass they will be built well IE not prone to failure.

Your talking about a drivetrain that goes from hundreds of moving parts to just ONE single moving part. Consider the implications of that for a moment...

That one moving part is the 4th component the electric motor. These things are big they are not prone to failure. That electric motor in all probability will outlast you outlast that car and maybe even outlast your children. They just do not tend to fail.

The cars will be plastic and aluminum to save weight. Well neither of those rusts or corrodes under normal conditions.

see where this is going? well back at the turn of the century guess where 54% of GM's profit came from? it came from "AFTER" they sold you the car. Finance Charges Interest Repairs Parts Labor etc..

Almost 100% of that goes POOF with an electric car. Once you understand this its not hard to see why they killed the EV1 with prejudice!

It was not enough to stop making it they had to crush them (literally they took each one to a crushing yard and CRUSHED them with a GM rep to witness and count to make sure they got them all I kid you not)

Then to really seal it up they sold the patent to a company they knew would rot in **** rather than permit them to be made. Chevron (via texaco)

The only reason Toyota even MADE the prius was in responce to the EV1 the only reason they did not KILL the Hybrid was because they did not KNOW that GM was going to kill the EV1 (or they would have immediately killed the prius)

by the time they found out they were too far in and decided to stick with it. Consider that a prius hybrid gets slightly WORSE gas mileage than a non hybrid diesel compact. only roughly EQUAL mileage to compact economy cars from the 80's and 90's

well thats because the battery in the prius is only good for about 3 miles of driving. Go figure.

IAfarmer. PLEASE tell me your not in that same ground of people.

"Sorry, if that were the case, gasoline would be a net loss in the end, however, it produces more in the end than it uses."

PLEASE how old are you? I am hoping you 30+ since that would mean you might have actually gotten an education in grade school (no insult todays teachings are anything BUT educating its monkey training)

Go freshen up on the conservation of mass and energy. Entropy. Fundamental principles in science for the operation of our universe.

EVER SINGLE ENERGY TRANSACTION IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE IS NET LOSS.

It literally physically to the best of our scientific knowledge CAN NOT BE any other way.

It takes FAR FAR more energy to get a gallon of gasoline into your car than we will EVERY be able to extract from it. Period. End of Discussion. Until the laws of physics change this MUST be so.

In a gasoline engine your converting MAYBE 2% of the potential energy in that gas to usable energy and of THAT energy your only getting maybe 20-25% in a REALLY efficient engine!

Its always lossy. ALWAYS. at least till we redefine the laws of physics.

Its not about how much energy goes in or comes out.

its about how many DOLLARS goes in and how many DOLLARS comes out.

even if it took TWICE the electricity to make the car go its still FEWER DOLLARS than an equivalent amount of gasoline.

to EQUAL the cost effectiveness of an electric car your gas car would need to get 300mpg and thats ONLY factoring in FUEL costs not maintenance repairs parts etc.. I think I estimated once that to be truly equal the gas car would have to get 600-700 mpg 500mpg if they made them out of aluminum and plastic.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top