Most subsidies of oil, coal are socialized in our taxes, healthcare we pay.
For instance why are we in the Perian Gulf? To protect international oil companies for free, No? Then why if not? That and the oil wars comes to $400B/yr or almost enough to balance the national budget next yr!!! That mean YOU ARE PAYING ABOUT 20% more in INCOME TAXES. Feeling better?
As a fiscal conservative I believe those who make the mess needs to pay for it. So put the full cost in oil in it as it should and it would already be $200/bbl. Repub say they want tax cuts and balance the budget then why are they subsizing big oil this much?
Coal kills 10k/yr and hospitalizes 150k/yr in the US among the many other land, water, air, buildings, etc destruction mining and burning it does every day. That too is in your taxes especially the insurance, medicaid/care and SSI ones. I guess you like paying these?
And this doesn't even include CO2 socialized costs.
So just who is subsidizing who? Should we be doing such massive coroprate welfare that has stiffled innovation and cause 5 of the last 6 recessions? And just what is the cost of an oi rlecession? How many more will we go though before we wise up to the real costs of oil, coal.
Or do you like paying much higher taxes to give to coroprations? I don't.
Politics are why we are in this mess. Had repubs mostly not favored oil, coal all these yrs we would have lots of energy, choices, jobs, just we'd be making it in our homes, buildings mostly, at least the smart ones will and many already do.
For instanct the average US 100x100' home lot gets 5mwhrs of sun/day average. I can live on that or a wind gen or biomass or best, a combo of them.
Excellent report on battery research. It's surprising to see how the various sectors stack up. And it's clear that both battery technology, in general, and lithium-ion in particular are going to see much more increased use. Still an area where innovation is likely to tip the scales and affect technology usage.
GTOlover, I was conservative with that estimate on purpose (a science and reporter habit), and wondered what others would say. I wasn't even thinking about power tools; more like phones, tablet PCs, etc. If we add power tools, my estimate is way too low.
My point was that in order to be really competitive with the IC engine and gasoline or diesel the oil price has to really rise, which it will not in the next decade. There is plenty of oil to be extracted as the price stays around $100.00. In the 90's I was working in another country on developing new wells, and the economic decision at the time was $10.00 even though the market then was in the $40's. A barrel is 42 gallons, so we are paying ~$2.40 a gallon for crude currently. I just don't see battery capacity rising fast enough, cheap enough to displace fuels in practicality or range. Other than Tesla there isn't an ev out there that can go around 100 mi. on a charge. In order to really displace fuel the ev must be capable of 400-500 mi. and be recharged in a few minutes. The price has to come down substantially.
Nice reply. Although I disagree that we will ever see $10ppb crude, I do believe that demand will decrease considerably as we enter the true era of the EV. You see, cheap easily accessible oil is pretty much depleted and what is left will be more expensive to extract or process - even in the case of shale. Fracking helps but it's still expensive and very controversial.
In short, oil will probably remain expensive and primarily used in the manufacturing of real "physical stuff". Demand for this physical stuff (with either oil in it or used to make it) will remain strong as emerging economies mature. This is a more rational use for oil anyhow.
As for the combustible engine for the masses, its peak is probably past. The era of the EV is here and chances are that in about 5-10 years we will be wondering why it took so long. For comparitive purposes, the EV is probaly where PC's were in the mid 90's.
That's nonsense. I don't believe oil will be $320-$440 a barrel any time soon. Oil companys don't get any special tax treatment. They recieve a way to depreciate their capital investment and intangible drilling costs. A realestate investment trust recieves the same tax treeatment. As far as the military protecting oil investment that is pure nonsense. If that were true American companys would be in Irac. They aren't. This is supposed to be about technology and not politics!
Charles the real subsidies hurting EV's are the massive ones for oil like protecting international oil companies for free. All up it's about 15% of the Fed budget and 50% of the military budget. If that was in oil as it should be we'd have been doing EV's long ago. That also mean YOU pay 15% more in taxes to cover it.
Next Lux or Pike have rarely been even close to correct 5 yrs out. They really don't have a clue based on their histories. Lithium batts/kwhr will easily double if not triple by 2018 because of 2 things, oil will be $8-10/gallon by then if the world economy recovers and lithium bats will be cheaper, under $200/kwhr retail in plug and play modules which is about what OEM's pay now for cells.
Tesla is getting them at about $150/kwhr for cells now. Musk laughed when asked and just said the battery prices are much lower than the press has been saying.
And if you do a teardown of them you'll find the cost of making cells for materials is under $100/kwhr now. At 22lbs the average costs of them is around $4/lb mostly plastic, iron, alum, copper, phosphate, etc . Even the .5lb of Lihium Carbonate is only $8/lb.
But again the problem isn't the batteries but refusal to build real cost effective EV's to use the ones we have. Just by cutting weight and better aero you can cut battery/costs by 50%.
And it's not like this isn't known as the GM UltraLite, Impact EV, Lovin's Hypercar, the Toyota 1/X done in medium tech composites get over 100mpg even on gas or 240 mile range on the Volt's 24kwhr pack. Heck even high schools are making them using Factory 5 kitcar body/chasis and doing the drivetrains smartly!!
But economics will win and if Detroit doesn't get with the program, they wil get left behind again.
2 recent details. An Electric MC, the Lightning MC, won the Pikes Peak race against the best gas bikes in the world. It's also the fast production bike in the US.
And Nissan Group just passed 100,000 EV sales.
As for start/stop the Lead batt problem is not recharging it completely before parking will make them sulfate up and die. And running the motor to do it is a waste. Best would be plug the car in to top thw batts up to full at least 1/wk.
Lithium on the other hand needs not to be fully charged for long life. OEM AGM's are likely $200/kwhr so Lithium isn't that far away. Retail on AGM's like Orbitals, Optima's are $400+/kwhr now so Lithioums are a lot closer than many think. It's only flooded lead that holds the line at about $60/kwhr OEM and $100 retail.
For these reasons Lux is just wrong as usual. And repoters like you keep reporting them anyways. Why? Can't you find someone who actually knows what they are talking about?
In an age of globalization and rapid changes through scientific progress, two of our societies' (and economies') main concerns are to satisfy the needs and wishes of the individual and to save precious resources. Cloud computing caters to both of these.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.