<The Impact Of Rising Oil Prices On Sydney Suburbs The Oil Drum European Gas Security: The Future of Natural Gas>
<DrumBeat: May 12, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: May 14, 2008>

297 comments on DrumBeat: May 13, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Black_Dog on May 13, 2008 - 9:13am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

From today’s NYT: Nissan Plans Electric Car in U.S. by ’10

Looks like the future for transportation is going to be electric.

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The Dude on May 13, 2008 - 9:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Your link ist kaputt, try this: Nissan Plans Electric Car in U.S. by ’10 - New York Times

Mr. Ghosn declined to disclose details of the electric products and said initial quantities would be small. “We’re talking about hundreds of vehicles first,” he said.

But he said that the company was determined to achieve “zero-emission-vehicle leadership.”

A parking lot full of mitigation. You'd need a tunneling electron microscope to see it on a graph...anybody still dismissing Hirsch?

ZEV, no such thing, unless you're filling the tank up with night soil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kenny on May 13, 2008 - 10:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's incredibly misleading to call an electric car "zero emissions." You might as well buy a steam powered car that comes with its own coal hopper. You drive while the front seat passenger shovels coal into the boiler furnace.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wharf Rat on May 13, 2008 - 10:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

All I need to do is plug it into my solar panels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Durandal on May 13, 2008 - 10:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Exactly what I plan on doing with mine when I have it done, plug it into my panels. :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kenny on May 13, 2008 - 10:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That would be a great way to spread home solar power adoption. Bundle the EV sale with the solar panels needed to charge it. Would those panels typically fit on the roof of a garage? What is the typical material and installation cost?

One caveat. This isn't necessarily a great solution for commuters who typically only store their cars in their garage at night.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on May 13, 2008 - 12:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Kenny;
In case you weren't around during an earlier EV discussion, check out this guy who runs two Rav4 EV's off his PV array. A recent issue of Homepower also featured a woman in the Northwest (US) who uses an NEV and PV combination.. and Finally, Pete Seeger uses a Pickup EV Conversion with PV on his barn roof up along the Hudson in NY state.

Rav 4's "RAV4-EV plug-in EV (74,000 miles, 4 years so far) charging directly from our solar rooftop array." http://sealbeach.org/

"The VoltsRabbit recharges its batteries from typical grid electricity or, in this case, from the Johnsons’ solar-electric system." http://www.homepower.com/view/?file=HP117_pg88_Johnson

Pete Seeger (PDF) from Homepower #103 http://www.renewablenys.org/retrieve_file.php?type=article&id=13

Personally, I'm designing a Velomobile for local travel, using both Pedal Power and Electric Motor Support. Trying to make it as lightweight as possible to keep the battery requirements and peddling strain reasonable.. looking at the BionX brushless motors for the Electric Propulsion. I will have both PV and Wind as part of my electricity mix..

Bob Fiske

And from the Seeger Article.. (The hippies are dead.. long live the hippies!)

If there is a human race still here in a hundred years, I think it will be hundreds of millions of little things that will have saved us. Imagine a big seesaw: one end is on the ground with a basket half-full of rocks on it. The other end is up in the air with a basket one-quarter-full of sand on it. Some of us have teaspoons and are trying to put more sand in the basket. Most people are scoffing at us: “Don’t you see the sand is leaking out as fast as you put it in?” We say, “That’s true, but we’re getting more people with teaspoons all the time.” One of these days, you’ll see that basket so full that the whole seesaw will go zoo-oop in the opposite direction, and people will say, “Gee, how did it happen so suddenly?” Us and all our little teaspoons.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
thomas deplume on May 13, 2008 - 6:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Perhaps the solution is to have two EVs,one for even days and one for odd days.
It looks to me that the use of solar and wind for a large percentage of our energy needs involves a large amount of duplication in one form or another. No wind in Iowa? Use the wind in Texas. No sun in Texas? Use the sun in Arizona. No water behind Hoover Dam? Use the water behind Grand Coulee. If you don't have two EVs you would at least need a separate battery pack in the garage so you could charge the EV at night. Extra production capacity plus considerable amounts of storage. Oil ain't cheap and neither will the replacements be cheap. Get used to it!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on May 13, 2008 - 11:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm going to plug my electric car into my solar panels too. luckily my roof is the size of a football pitch!!!!!

Marco.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
joemichaels on May 13, 2008 - 3:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Wharf Rat "All I need to do is plug it into my solar panels."

This statement is misleading to a lot of people who don't understand Solar Panel Power Production. If you have a grid tied (most are) system you have a net metering agreement with a utility to sell power back to the grid during overproduction (daylight hours) and purchase of power back from the utility at night. If there is a power failure your solar panels stop producing power for your use as well. Consider that there was a repairman working on a line where you are still producing power from your panels going into the grid. If the repairman is hurt, perhaps fatally, the bootleg power producer is responsible.

In order to have an off grid system you need batteries, local power generator and this is very expensive. Local Solar panels for residential rooftops will fail to be economical until the price of utility power rises to stratopheric levels.

How far are we away from average utility bills reaching those prices. The problem is that by the time utility prices reach those levels the economy may be seriously unwinding so much that average people will be unable to purchase solar panels.

In CA, which has a perfect environment for solar power generation, the growth of the solar industry has been tied to massive incentives (up to a third) and even then the economics of the purchase are a hard sell even for people that can afford them.

During the high flying times when people had the resources they chose to buy McMansions, expensive suv's, swimmingpools, exotic vacations and Home Theatre systems and did I mention accessories. The majority of these purchases were bought with massive amounts of home equity and credit card debt. Now that home equity has been wiped out, so has the opportunity to make an investment in solar technology for the majority.

The only people I see purchasing Solar Panels are the rich. And they're the same group that is buying oil futures and precious metal commmodities.

Will this mean the demise of the American Middle Class?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 4:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Wharf Rat "All I need to do is plug it into my solar panels."

Last time I cared to check there was a company that was making 200 watt DV-AC converters and their stumbling block was getting a 'deal' with a PV panel vendor.

Will this mean the demise of the American Middle Class?

Its mostly dead already.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on May 13, 2008 - 5:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Joe,
You also apparently don't understand Solar Power Production. Not necessarily your fault, but your post is misleading as well, on a number of fronts.

It has been stated numerous times at this site that you can have a Grid Tie that also has battery backup (with as much or as little battery capacity as you choose, and a comparative pricetag. The expense is probably a third of the cost of the total installation.) - and this can switch over safely if there is a grid failure. On top of that, PV panels are quite simple, and could be driving a car charger and/or backup car batteries as a completely independant system. The backup and car batts could even run an inverter for household loads, if you chose to set it up that way.

"The only people I see purchasing Solar Panels are the rich. And they're the same group that is buying oil futures and precious metal commmodities."

When you say it that way, it makes me wonder if you're actually looking. I see working people investing where they can. I am. I'm not rich. Clearly it's a tough investment to choose, against the lure and lull of the last cheap gas and grid power.. but to call it 'Uneconomical at current prices', and then go on immediately to predict how energy prices will soon be skyrocketing.. well that clearly makes it 'Economical' then, doesn't it? It's called an 'Investment' because you're doing it with a careful eye towards the likely future, not a fickle take on current but unstable conditions.

Is yours going to be going out there as yet another voice that says 'investing carefully is for rubes'? 'Looking ahead is too risky.. just live for today and then blame the government when things don't work out.' That's what our neighbors have heard from all sides, and it has given them the pass as they have kept putting off taking these tough pills.

Yes, it will be a tougher pill tomorrow, as all costs go up, as our available cash dwindles.. doesn't this make the conclusion clear as day? Do it now. Do some research and take the plunge with Efficient Appliances, Geothermal Heat Pumps, Passive Solar Retrofits, PV-EV , Solar Water and Air Heating, Wind, get the Bikes out of the Basement whatever..

Bob

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Durandal on May 13, 2008 - 7:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree that it can easily be viewed as an investment, and an investment that can be as expensive as you want it to be, with some limitations of course. My first system was an experiment, where I bought a 45 watt system, charger, and DC lights for $200. It was great to take camping to run my laptop off of when I felt inspired to write due to the wonderful relaxing atmosphere.

However, let's say you want to go a little bigger, with plans on going to a pretty good size. For $1500 you can purchase a charger/inverter combo. These puppies can pump out 2,500 to 3,000 watts, can charge from DC solar or AC input. They output pure sine wave, so it's safe to use them on things like your washing machine, etc. Then you can buy a few panels, with ability to add more panels in the future as money allows.

This is actually what I'm doing for my home I'm building this summer. For the construction of my home, I will have grid power, but after I get my solar system set up, I plan on cutting it off. I will have my inverter, a few panels for a total of around 500 watts of peak power, and every few months, I'll continue adding panels as money allows. My system will start out costing me $3,000 and can grow as the years pass by.

Am I rich? No. Am I middle class? Maybe. Am I a burger-flipper? No.

Others put money in their 401k... I put money into paying off my land, building my house with cash, and then ensuring I have no utilities to eat up my income when I'm retired.

:)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on May 13, 2008 - 10:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good luck with your house.

I think you were talking about the 45w system before. Harbor Freight? I picked up the same package, and luckily (according to you, IIRC) I never touched the charge controller. At that price, the panels were around $4.50/watt, and I'll use them here and there for Fans and Pumps on 'Automatic' Solar heating systems, etc.. one of them Ran an Electric HO Train on Earth Day, which was fun! The 12v CFL's were a nice bonus.

I know they are cheapish Chinese PV's, if we're talking about the same kit, but with some luck they'll last like I hear they should. I now have about 350w of PV, but still need to get a decent inverter.. just have a cheezy 400w approximated-sinewave 'car inverter'... more an emergency kit than anything.

Bob

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Durandal on May 14, 2008 - 7:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yeah, the 45w was the Harbor Freight one. I currently have a different charge controller for it now, which works much better. My new panels which are being delivered today are Evergreen Solar panels at 160w each. I will be getting a 48v Xantrex 3kw charger/inverter shortly for this system.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on May 14, 2008 - 8:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Interesting approach. I like the idea of incremental additions to capacity:

1) Start with core electronics: inverter, controller, charger, switches;

2) Then start adding PV panels and batteries as you can afford them.

Is there some sort of roof rack mount that you are using for the panels?

I could see the value of carefully figuring out the load from each circuit and labeling them so that one would know which circuits to keep on and which to snap off if one is on battery backup power or it was a cloudy day. One might even want to do a little re-wiring so that one had only high priority things (refrigerator, for example) on some circuits, and only dispensible things on the others. Once one had done that, then one would have a next-step goal (after initial set up with a "starter system"): add enough capacity to the system to at least power all of your "essentials" circuits, with enough battery backup to power them for X amount of time - 3 days, say. That might be as far as many people can ever get; the dispensible things might eventually just have to be truly dispensed with, as the power for them (whether from the grid or an off-grid system) might very well become unaffordable for most people.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
joemichaels on May 13, 2008 - 10:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Jokuhl "You also apparently don't understand Solar Power Production."

Relax Jokuhl! You apparently can't read what I wrote and that is your fault. I said most systems are grid tied. That's true. You can invest in a battery back-up system but that could send a $30,000 investment over $45,000. You said the exact same thing. What's the disagreement?

"another voice that says 'investing carefully is for rubes'?"

Didn't say that either. I said that when there was previously cash equity in peoples homes available for people to buy solar or energy saving investments they instead chose to buy consumer products. I didn't say or imply that Nobdody did. I said most people did. That's true.

Your argument that you aren't rich and you make careful investments doesn't hold up as an argument that would apply to more than a small segment of the population.

Premise: You aren't rich
Premise: You make good investments
Conclusion: People who aren't rich make good investments.

Premise to the particular applying to general = false conclusion.

Good Luck!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on May 14, 2008 - 8:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Joe;
Your whole post was built on absolutes and 'Premises to the Particular, Applied to the General'. You were responding to Wharf Rat's, "All I need to do is plug it into my solar panels." Which was an absolutely true statement, that you made sound unmanagable.

"Premise: You aren't rich
Premise: You make good investments
Conclusion: People who aren't rich make good investments.

Premise to the particular applying to general = false conclusion. "

I didn't draw that conclusion. I simply challenged your simplified suggestion that only 'the rich' are buying solar. I do draw the conclusion that there are certainly MANY working and middle-class people who are making this good investment.. and many others would also do so if they weren't getting so much bad advice.

Bob

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wharf Rat on May 14, 2008 - 12:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Rich? I'm a respiratory therapist, not a pulmonary doc. You don't even see us on the medical shows on TV (or at least I don't, cuz I don't watch 'em). Wharf rats are not known for being rich.

I'm grid intertie. No batteries until I need them, at which time I will plug in my seasonal creek, too. And that electric car (truck; 4WD??) does have batteries. If electrics can serve as batteries for the national grid, my own car should be able to do it with me.
This year, it looks like I will donate 500KWH to PGE, cuz I don't get paid for my excess. Yearly cost to me to be hooked to the grid...60 bucks. Administrative cost of disconnecting...not sure, but substantial.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on May 13, 2008 - 10:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Walking is a "ZEV", if you count breathing as a "given"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Geckolizard on May 13, 2008 - 10:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Gee, think of all the C02 that humans give off just by breathing... just by being alive we're contributing to global warming... Exhale, and the planet warms by .0000001 degree...

So no, even HUMANS aren't ZEV.

However, on a positive note, if in the future everything that emits CO2 needs carbon credits then I'll just sell my carbon credits and hold my breath for a really long time...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kenny on May 13, 2008 - 10:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No one is working on a portable carbon capture and storage device for humans on the go? Some kind of breathing aparatus attached to a backpack? I'm sure the prototype could be brought down to 50 lbs or less.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
r4ndom on May 13, 2008 - 11:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's called a rebreather, it's the latest in scuba gear.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Geckolizard on May 13, 2008 - 12:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sweet! Lets all walk around wearing suits like Vader... A nice little helmet and cape to protect us from UV radiation (since the Ozone layer will be gone), make it air conditioned inside (because it'll get just as not as Venus due to the greenhouse effect). I can just hear it 'rebreathing' now...

hoooooooooooo-prrrrrrrrr....
hoooooooooooo-prrrrrrrrr....
hoooooooooooo-prrrrrrrrr....

Use the force!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on May 13, 2008 - 1:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yup,Yup! Picture the planet as Frank Herbert's 'DUNE' with NPK as the SPICE. Job specialization is only possible if food surpluses can be generated.

I worry greatly about diminishing grain reserves.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on May 13, 2008 - 6:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The Cost of Walking to Increase

It had to happen sometime.
Our local station WDIV Detroit just had blurb that shoe manufacturers are increasing prices. No link yet.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on May 13, 2008 - 7:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yep, and when we start crawling again on all four limbs--then knuckle gloves get expensive too. Now--going back to monkey-swinging thru the trees--big cost savings are then possible if we can regrow our tails.

/sarconal off

I am just guessing, but wouldn't bicycle tires go much further than shoe leather cost-wise? I don't think the bicycle pedal/shoe interface frictionally wears off much shoe bottom, and you can buy a lot of tubes & tires for the price of a single pair of high-quality footwear, like Red-Wing boots.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on May 13, 2008 - 10:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yep.
Tires are cheap, it's the bike thats expensive, at least compared to most shoes.
Of course many shoes are bought with little thought of walking in them, judging by what some of the gals at work wear.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on May 14, 2008 - 8:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good shoes are expensive. I just bought a new pair of New Balance 926 walking shoes, and that set me back nearly $110. While local people could learn again how to make leather boots, I do worry about the long-term availability of good quality walking shoes. I doubt that stockpiling is a good long-term option, surely most of the synthetic materials would dry up and turn hard and brittle eventually.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
shaman on May 14, 2008 - 9:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And what's wrong with going barefoot? when I was growing up we scarcely ever put a shoe on from the time school ended in June until it started again in September. We only put shoes on when our Mom was taking us somewhere indoors.

And I'm only half joking here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on May 14, 2008 - 1:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What's wrong with barefoot? Fallen arches, for starters. As we get older, some of we adults have issues that kids don't have.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on May 13, 2008 - 11:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The story is in the Wall Street Journal no less.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121064588191087389.html?mod=todays_us_ma...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Marston on May 14, 2008 - 1:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Fantastic! Now we need to hurry this up a little!

V2G!! Better yet, as many say here, V2HPV (home photovoltaics).

Best wishes for rapid introduction of electric vehicles!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Durandal on May 13, 2008 - 9:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Huzzah! I look forward to this development. If I were in the market for a new car, I would certainly consider this vehicle, as I want a highway capable EV. Instead, I'm in the middle of converting a 1989 Honda CRX to an electric vehicle. The range likely won't be nearly as good as this Nissan, but at $8,000 for the conversion, it will certainly be cheaper. (In addition, if the CRX starts falling apart, I can take that electric drive-train and then install it in my 2000 Civic instead.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
embryonic on May 13, 2008 - 10:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Electric cars are typically recharged by plugging the vehicle into an electrical outlet at home or elsewhere overnight.

I know that any initial money these make if feasible is going to be made in overwhelmingly suburban America where you have a driveway and or garage so you can do whatever arrangements you want for recharging, but has the PHEV industry come up with any idea about what people in, eg, terraced streets in Britain with only kerbside parking or others who don't park their cars on their private property, will do? I don't imagine health and safety would be too keen on trailing an extension cord across the public pavement? Likewise I can't imagine there's much profit to be made adding electrical outlets everywhere people park. Just curious what the proposed solution is.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on May 13, 2008 - 11:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I recently saw a show about this on TV. What they were proposing is that you don't own the battery. You just pull up to a swap station and have your battery swapped out when the charge runs low. That battery will be recharged then swapped again. That way, you could go on long trips and swap your battery every hundred miles or so. Of course batteries today will not last that long but if you accept the idea that "technology will save us" then they will soon produce a battery that will go that far. On the show they were giving a figure of 120 miles on each battery. Of course the cars would be much, much smaller.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on May 13, 2008 - 3:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You don't need to believe in future technological miracles for this schema to work. IIRC A123Systems nanophosphate battery features a cycle life of about 6000 DOD cycles, which can be increased even further if batteries are charged and discharged carefully. If a full charge will bring an all electric vehicle 200 miles, this translates to 1,200,000 miles lifetime, enough to outlast 10 vehicles per battery.

The real quesiton IMO is who will build the infrastructure? In this case the best is the enemy of the good because noone will want to commit to building all this infrastructure if there is the perception that a better technology (EEstor?) is "just around the corner". I hope this does not hold us back way too long.

[edited to make my point more clear]

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Asebius from Toronto on May 13, 2008 - 10:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Despite the obvious limitations these vehicles suffer from, by the time they hit the market urban Americans and Canadians will be salivating. That's what $5 - $10 gas does to you.

Call it "The Law of Approaching Horizons".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on May 13, 2008 - 11:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The price of copper is going to rise to the point where the value of the copper windings in any electric or hybrid car will make it impossible to park it in the street.

No point buying a car if you can't afford an armed chauffeur.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

the value of the copper windings in any electric or hybrid car will make it impossible to park it in the street

Yea, sure...whatever.

Did you ever stop to consider that homes have over 200 lbs of copper and that runs right into the WWI and WWII anti-hoarding laws that are still on the books? (How about the use of copper in waste stacks - a 1960's early 1970's 'thing') Now imagine the waste stack, plumbing and electrical 'going away' from rental homes?

(I went on a quick look for the copper limits - got this instead)

http://members.aol.com/poesgirl/storing.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on May 13, 2008 - 12:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Homes are easier to secure and watch, and the consequences of invading an occupied home (at least in the US) are enough to give anyone pause.

The same does not apply to cars. Hence rampant theft of catalytic converters going on right now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 4:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yea, such a plan works out REAL GOOD with renters - right?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on May 13, 2008 - 4:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm not so sure.

In U.S., Metal Theft Plagues Troubled Neighborhoods

Some homes worth less than their copper pipes

Copper theft could have been deadly

Prevent home copper-tubing theft

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on May 13, 2008 - 5:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Note that this is going on in foreclosure heavy areas, and the homes get cased to see that they are unoccupied.

Try that on an owner-occupied or renter occupied home, and you might win the Darwin Award.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on May 13, 2008 - 6:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If you read the articles, you'll see that not all the homes looted are in foreclosure-heavy areas or unoccupied.

The thieves are often crackheads who really don't care if the home is occupied or not. People have been shot for the salvage value of their homes.

And sometimes they don't bother to turn off the gas when they steal the pipes. The house explodes, and the whole neighborhood may be damaged.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slinky on May 13, 2008 - 11:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Apuleius,

Good point. Additionally, does anyone here know anything about world copper supply? Is there a "peak" to worry about? Where's it all being mined? As energy inputs go up, what will that do to the mining industry? Would the demand boost the price, and be enough of an incentive to increase investment in extraction / exploration, or would the cost of doing business because of prohibitive energy costs deter further mining investment, and just raise the price of the copper they already have in place? I'd have to think that increased costs for operating mines already in place would outpace the effect increase demand would have on the copper's market price increase. It may be immaterial as the ev start-up begins, but as ev catches on, if it does, would that production increase decrease demand enough on ff to lower oil prices, thereby dampening incentive to invest in ev? Lots to consider. No easy answers. Very Tainteresque. To quote a regular at TOD, our solutions seem to cause other problems.

Jeff

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 12:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Is there a "peak" to worry about?

Sure, one should worry about 'peak copper' - exactly how will all the PV panels, wind turbines power all the EV cars?

Less cars then now or less people than the now if one wants to keep things in balance.

If a room temp superconductor were to come into existence, that would change things. But then again, so would fusion.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The Dude on May 13, 2008 - 12:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Regarding CCS with our bovine friends: Should we capture methane from cows ? - Yahoo! Answers. Or rather: MCS.

A teaspoon of sand into a basket? More like a grain, Pete.

MIT's WiTricity is a possible way of recharging PHEVs in parking spaces etc, without cabling. This would be slightly less onerous than having cords coming out of pavement, but still require a lot of infrastructure buildup.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 12:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

MIT's WiTricity is a possible way of recharging PHEVs in parking spaces

A waveguide is always the cheapest way to move a signal.

So any 'wireless electricity' will be lossy. If 'we' are worried about not having enough human-controllable watts in the future, are not excited over making H2 from water, et la - why should 'wireless power' be considered?

Not to mention having loops of copper to send and receive power.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on May 13, 2008 - 2:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Worying about methane from cows shows the Greens at their most moronic. Methane from cows is part of a natural cycle. The cows eat grassor corn then emit methane . The methane degrades to co2 which is taken up by the grass and corn and the cycle begins again. The process is carbon neutral. Simple, but to much for Greens.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
shaman on May 13, 2008 - 4:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nonsense. The issue with methane from cows is not whether or not it is a "natural" cycle. It has to do with how many cows exist and what their purpose is.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 4:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The methane degrades to co2 which is taken up by the grass and corn and the cycle begins again. The process is carbon neutral.

Because Weatherman has a history of using emotive words like moronic. or Simple, but to much for Greens.

I figured I'd dig up the 'timeframe'
http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight1/default.htm

relatively short life time in the atmosphere (9-15 years)

And here's a FAQ from the EPA (does that make it non-moronic Weatherman?)
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html

And rather than name calling, weatherman could have man'd up and pointed out http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

and pointed out:

Landfills. Landfills are the largest human-related source of methane in the U.S., accounting for 34% of all methane emissions.

how this source could be 0% if man instead composted the organic output.

But hey, its quicker to call a position 'moronic' than research - right Weatherman?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jbunt on May 13, 2008 - 4:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Would composting eliminate methane (from landfills)? I thought that I read a study from MIT that the composting has to have some sort of capture device for that to be true. But, I am probably wrong.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
darwinsdog on May 13, 2008 - 4:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Would composting eliminate methane..

If the compost was kept aerobic it would.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 5:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Would composting eliminate methane (from landfills)?

Yes.

I thought that I read a study from MIT that the composting has to have some sort of capture device for that to be true.

Amazingly, this is answered at the magicsoil web site.

http://www.magicsoil.com/MSREV2/oxygen_realities_in_compost.htm

But, I am probably wrong.

Yes. Yes you were wrong.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jbunt on May 13, 2008 - 10:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I stand corrected. Less methane. I was confusing the conclusion of the study, namely: "In fact, when compared to energy-recovery incineration (with energy recovery) of organic materials, composting does not emerge as the environmentally friendly choice."

http://footprint.mit.edu/waste/food/analysis/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 13, 2008 - 10:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://footprint.mit.edu/waste/food/analysis/

Still, MIT will probably accrue a net savings by expanding its composting program given the fact that hauling of compost is only half as costly as hauling of regular trash.

Thus, at least by the standard of greenhouse gas emissions, we see that recycling and composting are better options than landfilling all along the lifespan of a product.

Huh. 2 quotes showing that good choices can be made.

Jbunt's full quote:

Most of the energy involved at a composting facility goes towards keeping the mixture well-aerated. Requiring large machine-driven turnstiles or rotating bins, this can be rather energy intensive. In fact, when compared to energy-recovery incineration (with energy recovery) of organic materials, composting does not emerge as the environmentally friendly choice. However, at MIT dining hall waste is not sent to an incinerator, but goes instead to a regular landfill. And here the associated methane gas emissions still place composting ahead of landfilling in terms of lower environmental impact.

(So they pick a bad plan and complain)

Amazingly there is a solution to the churning and aeration. Earthworms. The worm gin/vemitech flow thru bin are two solutions. One school places their organics on the ground in a thin layer and generates 7 inches of 'soil' a year.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on May 14, 2008 - 8:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No, what we need to do is to get all organic municipal wastes into anaerobic digesters to produce and capture the methane in a controlled manner. It can then be fed into the natural gas distribution system, and at least partially replace a non-renewable, depleting resource with a renewable one. This is very feasible, the technology already exists and has been deployed around the world. It does require an initial investment, but given that the value of the methane produced creates a long term revenue stream, that should make the investment quite attractive.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ammond on May 13, 2008 - 12:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Slinky asks: "Is there a "peak" to worry about? Where's it all being mined?"

There's a kind of copper mining practice going on here in Atlanta, Georgia. Anyone who needs it can go to any unoccupied home and rip it from the walls. So there's no copper supply problem. In Atlanta it's a security problem.

Our neighborhood watch keeps tabs on these thefts. I wish I could laugh at the humor in this reply but this is really going on around my neighborhood.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on May 15, 2008 - 2:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Most oil is in high grade "giant" oil fields. Most copper is in low grade ores.
When the price of oil goes up small oil fields become worthwhile. When it goes down, stripper wells get cemented in. Ditto for copper mines. When copper prices go up, speculators buy copper futures. And who sells the copper futures? Copper miners locking in the higher prices. And then they pull another copper deposit off the stack of deposits that weren't quite good enough to mine in the last boom, and send in the drills and dynamite and shovels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on May 13, 2008 - 1:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Military cracks down on scrap-metal scavengers

TWENTYNINE PALMS, Calif. - Hundreds of Marines were conducting a combat training mission in the Mojave Desert when an air patrol spotted something kicking up dust: A civilian pickup truck speeding across the barren landscape.

Behind the wheel was a suspected scrap metal thief who had been combing the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center for spent brass shell casings. His intrusion onto the base was the 12th time in six months that scavengers had inadvertently halted combat exercises.

Bombing ranges have become prime hunting grounds for so-called "scrappers," who are motivated by soaring commodity prices to take greater risks in their quest for brass, copper and aluminum. The scavenging causes headaches for the military, which cannot patrol every inch of the remote bases where spent ammunition, shrapnel and unexploded ordnance are easy to find.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
darwinsdog on May 13, 2008 - 1:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The copper in your home is needed for munitions. It's a matter of national security. Cooperate or be arrested for treason. Lord Cheney commands it. Stand aside.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on May 13, 2008 - 1:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Be sure to let them have your lead supply, too.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jbunt on May 13, 2008 - 4:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

darwinsdog - I personally have lost 75 close friends to execution by Cheney recently due to doing exactly what you said - having copper in their house. You are a genius!! I wish that you would write an article on your point. It is exactly what people here at TOD want to hear about. Thanks for your input and wisdom. Leanan - I would be willing to help fund the cost of such an article if it requires funding.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
darwinsdog on May 13, 2008 - 4:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks for your input and wisdom. Leanan - I would be willing to help fund the cost of such an article if it requires funding.

You're very welcome.

Leanan - my fees are quite high. ;)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on May 13, 2008 - 1:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Just offer bonus awards to any military pilot strafing illegal civilian vehicles out on a gunnery range. They could use the moving target practice. Once a few nice bottles of Scotch are handed out to the proud winners--I think the theft problem will be solved.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on May 13, 2008 - 1:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My nominal home town is not something I ever expected to see posted about on an energy blog.

Go Wildcats!

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
thomas deplume on May 13, 2008 - 7:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Does this mean that our military is so over stretched that it can't even protect our home bases from intruders? Is there anyone guarding our nuclear weapons? Wait, there was that incident the Air Force had last year.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

297 comments on DrumBeat: May 13, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version