[Paulozzo]

Brenda, I know those batteries are THAT expensive. But notebooks, cell phones or DVD players were also pricey as hell when they were introduced. And market and new technologies handled them well.

Gotta go, so thanks for a great conversation, I really am starting to like this forum

[Brenda]

Paulozzo Paulozzo:

Brenda, I know those batteries are THAT expensive. But notebooks, cell phones or DVD players were also pricey as hell when they were introduced. And market and new technologies handled them well.

Gotta go, so thanks for a great conversation, I really am starting to like this forum

Those are gadgets.

[herbie]

Bin Dare dundat.
There were a lot of natural gas vehicles in BC in the 80s. No one seems to remember that there isn'tas much energy in natural gas, and the range sucked.*
EVs already meet that range.

What we'll run into is the same preconception the Smart Car ran into. Wah... Americans won't like engines that little so they shittified them with bigger engines that got crappy mileage as soon as they entered the US market and removed the choice for Canadians.

An LNG fuel cell/EV is what makes the most sense. The fuel supply is already here and abundant, unlike Hydrogen fuel cells.

* but keep in mind most conversions were the old full size vans with 350 cu in V8s. New smaller engines would extend that, but with vehicles being smaller now the tanks would most likely be smaller too.

[BartSimpson]

Paulozzo Paulozzo:

74Ah battery for my diesel car costs around $100 (give or take) and a new rotary pump or turbocharger costs a fortune.

If that poses such an issue to you then perhaps you should embrace public transportation or start riding a bicycle.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Paulozzo Paulozzo:

74Ah battery for my diesel car costs around $100 (give or take) and a new rotary pump or turbocharger costs a fortune.

I dunno about the batteries for EV but I am sure that if the tar sands start running dry, the market with deal with it.

Yep, they'll convert cars to natural gas, which they should have already done.

Or Rainbows and magical Leprechauns riding Unicorns.

NG is a better fuel, but unless the solution fits in to the existing infrastructure, it's voluntary adoption is unlikely.

[DrCaleb]

I rather like the styling. Better than a Smart fourtwo.

[EyeBrock]

Battery power and hybrids just aren't there yet. Endex.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Paulozzo Paulozzo:

74Ah battery for my diesel car costs around $100 (give or take) and a new rotary pump or turbocharger costs a fortune.

I dunno about the batteries for EV but I am sure that if the tar sands start running dry, the market with deal with it.

Yep, they'll convert cars to natural gas, which they should have already done.

Or Rainbows and magical Leprechauns riding Unicorns.

NG is a better fuel, but unless the solution fits in to the existing infrastructure, it's voluntary adoption is unlikely.

Guess you missed the part where he wrote about the tar sands running dry. Nothing voluntary about it. But who knows, maybe by then well have found a better solution. Doubt it tho.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Guess you missed the part where he wrote about the tar sands running dry. Nothing voluntary about it. But who knows, maybe by then well have found a better solution. Doubt it tho.

The oil sands won't be run out any time in this century. All told Canada is estimated to have somewhere north of 179 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves with a potential for as much as three or four times that amount in as yet undiscovered reserves.

Thus the question will be why should anyone use a more expensive source of energy so long as abundant petrochemical sources prevail?

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thus the question will be why should anyone use a more expensive source of energy so long as abundant petrochemical sources prevail?

Exactly. Why would anyone buy a car that costs twice as much just to buy it, is more expensive in maintenance and repairs and only gets you around town, before you have to plug it in? Does not make any sense.

I have no problem going green, but I am not going to go broke doing it.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Or Rainbows and magical Leprechauns riding Unicorns.

NG is a better fuel, but unless the solution fits in to the existing infrastructure, it's voluntary adoption is unlikely.

Guess you missed the part where he wrote about the tar sands running dry. Nothing voluntary about it. But who knows, maybe by then well have found a better solution. Doubt it tho.

Guessed you missed where I said 'voluntary'? (I noted his use of 'tar' sands as well, knowing 'tar' is the incorrect but preferred word of the radical environmental movement)

And as Bart and Brenda said, the oilsands aren't going anywhere soon. If they can make a hybrid or full EV better* than my IC vehicle, I'll buy it. If they can make a thorium reactor based full electric, with a peanut oil deisel engine as backup and sell peanut oil on every street corner, I'm first in line for one. Till then, I'll be driving my dino-burners.

*better; meaning range, repair, replacement and refinement.

[andyt]

I didn't miss where you said voluntary, that's why I said nothing voluntary about it. He was posing a hypothetical that oil would run out, in which case an alternative would have to be found. You chose to answer with a non sequitur about rainbows etc. Why?

Oh, and:

$1:

'TAR SAND' IS NO NEW ENVIRO TERM
The term tar sands was more widely used than oil sands to describe Alberta's bitumen fields until the 1960s, when the provincial government made it a formal policy to call it oil sands.

Today, the Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary defines "tar sand" this way:

"A sand body that contains heavy hydrocarbon residues such as tar or asphalt, or degraded oil that has lost its volatile components. Hydrocarbons can be liberated from tar sands by heating and other processes, but tar sands, such as the Athabasca tar sands of Canada, are not commonly commercial because of high costs of production.

"Among some workers in the field of heavy oil, this term is falling out of use, in favor of the term 'oil sand.'"

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers website describes the term tar sands as a "colloquialism" and oil sands as "an accurate term." However the same CAPP site notes interchangeable usage over 70 years ago:

"The University of Alberta's library has a scanned copy of The History of Alberta Oil that quotes the December 1939 issue of The Pre-Cambrian:

"'The tar sands, or more properly the oil sands, of the McMurray area constitute probably the largest potential oil field in the world, and it has been the dream of many oil technologists to find an efficient and economic process of separating the oil from the sand in such a condition that it will be readily processed in a modern refinery into gasoline, diesel and fuel oil, and road oils..." -- Mr. L. C. Drummond, Secretary-Manager of the Alberta and North-West Chamber of Mines. Source: Peel's Prairie Provinces; University of Alberta Library.

What's The Tyee's policy on tar sands vs. oil sands? Agnostic. "I publish whichever term the writer chooses, no questions asked. We're not the Spanish Inquisition here," explains editor David Beers.

[OnTheIce]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Battery power and hybrids just aren't there yet. Endex.

Sure they are. Are they evolving? Sure...and they'll only get better.

I drive a Chevy Volt for a week or so every month and this car is incredible!

I drive to and from work, 60km on a single charge and if I need to go further that day, the generator kicks in and uses very little gas to charge the batteries as you drive. All this in a car that's "normal" and doesn't look like a red headed step-child of a car. Holds 4 people and crap in the back all with AC, Navigation and all the toys. Even heated seats!

Last time I ran out of juice and the generator kicked on it was 1.1L/100km.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I didn't miss where you said voluntary, that's why I said nothing voluntary about it. He was posing a hypothetical that oil would run out, in which case an alternative would have to be found. You chose to answer with a non sequitur about rainbows etc. Why?

Because humour is my weapon Andy, or haven't you figured that out yet? His hypothetical is also a non-sequitr hypothetical fantasy as unicorns and rainbows because it's just as unlikely to happen before alternatives are found.

I've read and seen many articles and shows on alternative energy, and the one thing they all agree on; to be adotped now any alternative must be as good as what it's replacing and it must fit the existing infrastructure or not need it's own infrastructure.

andyt andyt:

Oh, and:

$1:

'TAR SAND' IS NO NEW ENVIRO TERM
The term tar sands was more widely used than oil sands to describe Alberta's bitumen fields until the 1960s, when the provincial government made it a formal policy to call it oil sands.

It is not new, but 'tar' is preferred by the hard line anti-oil crowd because it has a more negative connotation than does 'oil'. Would you prefer the scorched, rotting flesh of a castrated runmind; or a well aged perfectly cooked Alberta beef steak?

andy andy:

"'The tar sands, or more properly the oil sands, of the McMurray area ...


What's The Tyee's policy on tar sands vs. oil sands? Agnostic. "I publish whichever term the writer chooses, no questions asked. We're not the Spanish Inquisition here," explains editor David Beers.

Like your quote here says - 'tar' is incorrect as it was not normally used in reference to hydrocarbons, rather it was used in reference to hardened tree sap. As it happend, natives in the Athabasca area used oilsand to waterproof canoes instead of traditional pine tar.

And who cares what the editorial policies of the Tyee are? This is CKA.

[andyt]

And our editorial policy is to use oil sands?