Not much confusing about this RATIONALE, or wait; maybe. But anyhow, let's just CONSIDER the following for a SECOND:
Let me simplify it a tad more for y'all. OIL which is less accessible is more expensive. In other words, the once ABUNDANT cheap easily accessible oil is gone. Or put another way, LESS easily accessible oil has resulted in HIGHER prices. And once more, we have depleted the easy to pump oil sources. GET IT? I don't see where the confusion is here. I work in this field and can tell you first-hand that new explorations are moving to far riskier, deeper and unstable places.
I noticed you omitted the rationale for there being ample methods to generate electricity vs. simply burning fossil fuels- that's okay.
Ecological damages you ask? Do you think for a second that it was simply by chance that the gulf coast oil disaster was due to a simple malfunction? Let me tell you that they were extracting this oil 5 miles down from surface of the earth. Have you seen what tar sand processing areas look like after they have been extracted and processed? AND finally a little thing called emissions whilst burning fossil fuels. Maybe a bad thing or maybe not (am not a chemist or environmental professional nor claim to be in that capacity), but why take chances if there are far better AND cleaner alternatives?
But anyhow, I rest my case and realize that it is simply impossible to make a case with this "denial-ist" line of thinking. It' always a waste of time and all is lost in what I refer to as "stone-wall logic". A glimmer of hope is that the youth is more open-minded about these issues and are not set in hard-nosed ways.
I guess I am getting more confused. Your first post seemed to say that we were running out of petro reserves.
Your second acknowledges the existance of these vast new reserves, the estimates are staggering and there is plenty of reason to believe more is out there. Now I know oil prices need to be higher than the super low prices of the past for fracking to be economical, but it clearly is at todays prices. Not seeing the driver for much higher prices (and adjusted for inflation todays gas is not that bad).
Huge environmental impact? You will need to be more specific. I've read a bit on the fears some have on fracking and I've read the rebutals. Frankly the defences of it seemed far clearer and better reasoned than the opposition. A laymans opinion, but there it is.
Or are you refering to climate impact?
Again, lots of caps tends to signal emotive rather than reasoned delivery-it is not a plus to your presentation.
I am EXTREMELY familiar with FRACKING, Bakken shale, ND and Canadian oils/tar sands, horizontal drilling methods, etc... The main problem with these is they are a mere partial solution and result in much more expensive fuel and huge negative environmental impact to boot. (BTW: I dont consider myself a tree hugger)
Again, sorry to spoil your cheap oil party buddy, it's simply over. We need to get over it and move on to much cleaner AND sustainable energy sources. By inherency, electricity offers a myriad of potential generation sources (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, clean coal,LNG, nat gas, etc) thus resulting in flexibility and cleaner options.
The era of the EV is here and just lifting off the ground.
@ RogueMoon, I must say these are very balanced comments and a fair analysis of EVs. The most important thing is to keep trying and overcoming the problems. There is no point in talking big without actually coming up with something. It is the most effective way of silencing the critics to come up with the break through and provide solution to the problems.
Sorry to spoil your party but... maybe true in the past, NOT SO TODAY.
The set circumstances' outlined in this article were simply trumped by muted almost non-existent global prosperity but most of all, HUGE new oil reserves (north seas) which lead to cheaper oil prices for decades to come (bottoming at <$10 ppb).
Forward to today whereby we have the exact opposite: Plateau-ing oil prices at $80 to $100ppb and a HUGE burgeoning global population whereby demand for automobiles could very easily TRILPLE in a matter of mere years - not decades.
Where is that oil to power these vehicles going to come from? Not so, and therefore to meet demand an alternative to the fossil fueled (sorry nat gas is also limited) combustible engine would need to come of age.
Working in the energy-related industry for over fifteen years, I can see first hand how companies are going further and much much deeper to extract energy sources.
@JimT: That is a very inspiring story indeed. I think this is a start for something big and new for the future. Surely there will be some big names and products / services coming up. So this will be a part of it for sure.
Just found another neat link on the Vintage Voltage site, detailing Rock Legend Neil Young's entry into EV research. See this YouTube link detailing the effective conversion of a 1959 Lincoln, to prove that EV efficiencies could be optimized to power even a behemoth of that era. Very Interesting: (4 part video)
I had a close working peer make an EV in his garage, using a Nissan 240SX with a blown engine. It started as an experiment "to see if he could"; --- and he did, for a personal investment of less than $15,000. He still drives the 240SX as his daily vehicle. From the experience, he started Vintage Voltage, LLC, and now is in the lithium battery pack development and charging business. See his story at http://vintage-voltage.com/240sx/
Digital healthcare devices and wearable electronic products need to be thoroughly tested, lest they live short, ignominious lives, an expert will tell attendees at UBM’s upcoming Designers of Things conference in San Jose, Calif.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.