Unicorn Flatulence is the Ultimate Flex Fuel
“Quote of the Week,” as dubbed by Kate of Canada’s Small Dead Animals blog, who found it in the comments of Richard Fernandez’s Belmont Club page here at PJM:
You can think of the Volt as the ultimate in flex-fuel. It runs 30% on coal, 40% on natural gas, 9% each for nuclear and hydropower. Of course, the overhead losses in generation, distribution, conversion, and storage are immense.
It is also worth noting that the current Administration is against coal, natural gas, nuclear power and dams.
Speaking of which, add Evan Thomas, late of Newsweek (who famously compared Obama to God in June of 2009), now with the Politico, to the list of journalists who believe that Obama needs to drive up energy prices even further:
[GORDON PETERSON, host of PBS's Inside Washington, this past Friday]: Okay, Mitt Romney says his energy plan will create more than three million jobs, will open up more areas for drilling off Virginia and North Carolina – these two states critical to the national election. He’s a numbers guy, Evan. This is his ballpark here.
EVAN THOMAS, POLITICO: But he is also, as usual, being phony. He also says it will bring down gas prices, energy prices. That’s not true. We’re on a global market. No matter how much we drill, it’s not going to have a big impact on energy prices. So that part is not true. Actually, it would be better if energy prices went up because we need to develop alternative sources…
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Which he’s not really very interested in.
THOMAS: No, he’s not, but he’s, you know, they’re doing the “Drill, baby, drill” thing. They’re trying to make a complicated issue emotional, and demagoguing it for the campaign.
Demagoguery you say? From the perspective of consumers, it’s coming from the MSM, not the GOP — we can add the already JournoList-tained Politico to NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, which joined Obama and his Steven Chu, his energy secretary to call for energy prices to rise in the midst of the recession.
Something to think about when you gas up your car this week:
Update: “Gasoline Rising to Holiday High as Storm Surge Presses Obama,” Bloomberg News reports. Hey, good news! Right, Evan, Tom, Pinch, Barry and Steve?
(Gas pump photo via Instapundit, used with permission.)
“You can think of the Volt as the ultimate in flex-fuel. It runs 30% on coal, 40% on natural gas, 9% each for nuclear and hydropower. Of course, the overhead losses in generation, distribution, conversion, and storage are immense.
It is also worth noting that the current Administration is against coal, natural gas, nuclear power and dams.”
And, as always, it’s RAAAAACIST to make this sort of juxtaposition.
I have pointed out many times that essentially leftist economics is a policy of artificial scarcity.
Usually they just try to make it less obvious.
03/10/12 – EconLog by David Henderson
Is Obama Responsible for Increased Gasoline Prices?
( http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/does_obama_bear.html )
=== ===
The world uses 90 MBD (million barrels per day) and prices are inelastic. Cutting supply by just 1 MBD (1.1%) would raise the market price by about 10%. Speculators anticipate this, bid up the future price, and the current price follows upward.
=== ===
US oil production was 9.688 million MBD in 2010
( http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/oil_production.html )
Higher US oil production would lower world market prices. Obama is wrong about US oil production being an insignificant fraction of world production. He is correct that oil prices are determined mostly by world production, and incorrect that our production doesn’t matter.
The US could easily produce 1% to 2% more of world production, which would lower prices by 10% to 20%. This competition at the current price would remove pricing power from big producers such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran. They would lower their expectations, set lower long term prices, and increase planned production.
Could the big producers offset US oil production by holding back sales of their own oil? Possibly, by giving up the income which that oil delivers to them. That is a strong incentive to lower their price to preserve their income. Just the threat of increased US production might shake them to lower their market price.
Waiting for Oil
( http://www.EasyOpinions.blogspot.com/2012/03/waiting-for-oil.html#supply )
Libs cannot do math!!
Plus domestic drilling creates good paying jobs and improves our balance of payments and gets us out of a region that is a political nightmare.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with domestic drilling. NOTHING.
Permit me to revise and extend my remarks. “Libs AND Bill O’Reilly cannot do math!”
Guess where all those “unicorn-y” fuel sources come from?
The USA.
Very little if any electricity is generated from imported energy sources (Hawaii and perhaps some oil-burning generators in the northeast). And last time I checked, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers weren’t disgruntled coal miners or nuclear technicians.
Also, electric drivetrains are more efficient than internal combustion drivetrains if you include all losses when comparing _both_. Wonder why diesel trains are actually diesel-electric? Diesel-electric is a serial hybrid powertrain minus the batteries. Ideally vehicles would have electric powertrains with a buffer battery and a 50-80% efficient solid-oxide fuel cell onboard that runs on gasoline, CNG, diesel, etc. In the meantime, I’m perfectly happy with my Volt.
Also, front-month RBOB futures are $2.81 and change at this moment. That’s per gallon of gasoline. A gallon of gasoline contains about 33.7 kWh, so when you buy a gallon of gas you’re paying about 12 cents per kWh, which is comparable if not slightly higher than what most Americans pay for electricity. This is, of course, before taxes are added onto the raw market price of the gasoline, and I’m not excluding the taxes, delivery charges, etc that a kWh costs here. A 80% efficient SOFC drivetrain would get about 3 miles per kWh so that’s 80MPG.
Right now, with the ‘cobbled-together’ tech in the Volt, I pay about 4 cents per mile on electric, and my commute round trip is entirely electric. How much do you pay for your gasoline? The battery costs according to GM parts sites about $3000. That’s the cost of a new tranny or extensive underhood work (such as if you lose an accessory belt and damage things attached to it like the AC compressor), and rather a bit less than a blown head gasket or replacement of a timing chain or belt. My old Benz needed a replacement exhaust system as the original had rusted and cracked, and that cost more than $2k to replace. Frankly, in 8 years, if I haven’t traded it in for an upgraded version, I think I will have had the werewithal to save up for a replacement battery by then if the original is unusable, and by then there will likely be batteries with greater capacity at a lower or the same price.
Y’all go right ahead and bash on the designed-during-the-Bush-administration Volt from the TARP-assisted-by-Bush GM and the implemented-during-the-Bush-administration subsidy, I’ll be leaving you 3 cars back when the traffic light turns green thanks to all my silent, smooth torque.
No thanks on the VOLT for me. My daily commute is close to 60 miles. In the dead of winter in stop and go traffic that can take upwards of 40 minutes to do the last 14 miles, I just don’t have faith that the current crop of vehicles will get me home. In addition, something just rubs me the wrong way about a product that requires a hefty contribution from my fellow taxpayers just to make it close to affordable and we haven’t even started talking about the home 240V charger price.
You wouldn’t happen to have a cite for all that efficiency that didn’t link to Greenpeace?
“…Actually, it would be better if energy prices went up because we need to develop alternative sources…”
The problem (well, ONE of them) with that statement is that there are no low-hanging energy fruit left; if there were, someone would already be developing them. I mean, with billions of dollars to be made, NO one is going to suppress anything that would produce more energy and/or increase efficiency, 100mpg carburetor myths notwithstanding. Raising energy prices is not going to force alternative energy development when the prospect of vast obscene profits can’t.
Hey Ed, next time you run into one of these “experts”, you might ask them the following question:
If the price of oil isn’t responsive to increased supply, then what’s the point of tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve before the election?
If America’s ability to produce oil has no impact on the price of oil — the left claiming that increasing supply will not lower demand or price — why does Obama dump gas on the market to lower the price, especially when he has specifically stated he has no problem with $5 gas?
So, Evan… adding U.S. oil production to the global market wouldn’t affect the global price of oil? Are you willfully stupid, ignorant of economic reality, or just drunk?
I would say that Evan Thomas couldn’t run so much as a lemonade stand, but that would be a gross understatement. How does one even have a debate with a person who is so oblivious to economic reality?
Oh, and as Prof. Reynolds would say… ‘Evan Thomas: rube.’
Evan Thomas and his buddies are full of crap as a Christmas goose. It really is a global market, but locally produced and refined liquid fuels are a hell of lot cheaper than those that have to be transported huge distances via floating tanker. It also takes very little increase in supply to have a dramatic effect on price. The loony left will always oppose developing our domestic energy supplies. Screw ‘em. It’s pat time for common sense to rule.
BTW until the energy density of batteries triples electric cars are a frickin’ joke, toys for the rich, and guilty concience balm for idiots.
Actually, if you do the analysis for the cost of ownership over 10 years for a base Tesla sedan versus a similarly equipped BMW, the Tesla wins hands down. The maintenance cost is lower and the fuel costs are lower. From the point of view of convenience and enjoyment, it’s fun to drive, fast, and it allows access to the diamond lane (although, arguably, it shouldn’t). On top of that, they *are* the ultimate flex fuel vehicles, as Fernandez points out. All of these are compelling reasons to own an EV, particularly if it is one’s second commuter car.
If you own one, good for you and you are welcome to it. Most of us out here in “fly-over country” don’t want or can’t afford a high priced toy that can’t go 150 miles w/o a recharge.
BTW good luck w your cost analysis if ObamaRx gets another four years and you get to pay 20 to 25 cents per kwh like everywhere in Europe, except France, which is mostly nuclear power.
To Noah Nehm,
That is an odd phrase “If you do the analysis”. Where is your analysis, or a link to one? I would think that the Tesla is too new to really know what it will cost to own one.
Some of its problems are new also.
http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem
=== ===
If the battery is ever totally discharged, the owner is left with what Tesla describes as a “brick”: a completely immobile vehicle that cannot be started or even pushed down the street. The only known remedy is for the owner to pay Tesla approximately $40,000 to replace the entire battery. Unlike practically every other modern car problem, neither Tesla’s warranty nor typical car insurance policies provide any protection from this major financial loss.
=== ===