ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Excuse me but General Motors stopped production on electric cars because they don’t work not because of some contrived conspiracy by the oil companies. Please don’t insult everybody’s intelligence by suggesting that we can run our cars with solar panels on the tops of our cars. The best photo voltaic solar panels will only produce 12 watts per square foot ! If I covered the whole top of my truck with photo voltaics (72 sq ft ) I would be getting just a little more than one horsepower (745 watts = 1 horsepower) That won’t even get me up Arnez grade ! Hybrid cars make sense, but an all electric car does not. An all electric car is not zero emissions, that power has to come from somewhere and it would have to come from power plants, which produce pollution. And you have a great deal of loss when you send that power over transmission lines. I’m sure this electric car movie makes for splendid fiction but anybody with a high school education can tell you that the number don’t add up.

BC

Uh, excuse me, intelligence insults aside, but I think "anyone with a high school education" can figure out that the solar panels go on top of the roof of the garage where the electric car is parked! :)

Brian,
while this documentary will be admittedly and unabashedly biased, i suggest we see it together, THEN engage in acidic commentary-slinging!

Brian - I am guessing that Michael should have added that solar panels will "partially power" plug-in hybrids. Which is entirely accurate. The fact is that solar panels on car roofs will incrementally increase miles-per-gallon, which contributes to reducing our foreign energy dependence.

http://www.evworld.com/general.cfm?section=directory&page=insider&nextedition=36
"Ford claims that between the car's aerodynamics, diesel-hybrid drive and solar panels on the roof -- yes, you read that right; solar roof panels -- the Reflex should be able to deliver 65 mpg (3.6L/100 km) on the highway."

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/flexible_roofto.html
"The solar panels augment the charging for the hybrid’s battery pack. A SolaPrius prototype averaged an overall 10% improvement in fuel economy."

PS - I think Lisa is right. Michael - where you referring to solar panels on houses powering cars, or solar panels on the cars themselves? Either way, we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and continue to work towards renewable non-polluting energy resources.

Ok fine, lets assume I have my entire house covered with solar panels. If my house is 30' by 100' that would give me 3000 sq ft X 12 watts/sq ft = 36,000 watts, divided by 745 watts/hp = 48 horsepower that my panels are putting out while the sun is shining. In the winter that will average about 4 hours and in the summer about 6 hrs due to the declination of the sun. 3000 sq ft of photovoltaics are going to run you about $15,000.00 dollars at $5.00/sq ft. Sure you can do it but not everybody can afford it.

BC

Brian,

You bring some good points and your math and engineering skills are top notch. We could use those skills in this new forefront we must face.

I think that you could use a lesson in tact, however. You've sufficiently bummed out everyone on this post by throwing out insults. If the issue that you've pointed out, is that inevitably we are dealing with fossil fuel inputs, don't you agree that fixed source power is more efficient and less environmentally degrading than automobiles? In other words, don't you agree that a powerplant, with all of today's technology (ie; scrubbers, particulate filters, ect.) are far less polluting (per kilowatt earned) than the conventional automobile? If you agree with this, than the electric car (with it's dependence on fixed source power) is a step in the right direction, especially for people who only commute 90 or less miles a day. Make sense?

Brian H., Thanks for the technical complement, I know a few things but by no means am I an expert,... if I don't know something I usally know where I can find it though!

Sorry, I didn't mean to assail your sacred cow. The idea of clean electric (or hydrogen) cars is something that is very desirable. The electric cars are very quiet and do not give off emissions (in thier immediate area anyway). The electric cars also have a few other problems, the batteries are very heavy, so your payload is limited. And with some of the new exotic batteries there are some environmental aspects of dealing with the disposal of the worn out batteries.

But just imagine if we all had electric cars, think how many more power plants would have to be built ! As it stands now we are approaching a max out on the grid, during spikes in temperature in the summer we get warnings of brown outs. Burning natural gas is probably the cleanest form of fossil fuel and an argument could be made for powering electric cars that way. But we also use natural gas for all of our other electrical uses as well a source for heating our homes, this puts a strain on the supply of natural gas. That why some people are pushing for these LNG terminal(s). No matter what you do you can not clean up the burning of coal, I don't care how many scrubbers you put on a coal plant you're not going to eliminate the pollutants, which are substanial. That's why I am an advocate for Nuclear power. The best prospect for the future is the hybrid turbo diesel electric. The biggest source of pollutants is when an engine is idleing at a stop light and in stop and go city traffic. That's where the benifit of hybrid is most noticeable. On the highway, at high speeds, you are better off running on fuel as far as efficiancy and clean emissions go.

BC

i'm an advocate for nuclear power as well, but to quote from Michael Lind, the best source is 93 million miles away.

i'm not a fan of any technology that includes in its applications the ability to make globally devastating weapons, so cleanliness and security issues with nuclear power plants aside, i have a hard time being excited about nuke technology on my planet when we humans can't seem to keep away from using it for destruction.

Professor Arronax:
“ I can hardly believe how one could conceive and build such a craft, and in a single stroke harness power beyond the wildest dreams of science. Why such a secret could revolutionize the world ! “

Captain Nemo:
“ Or destroy it ! “

From Jules Verne , “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea”

excellent snippet, Brian.

i guess it's not so far off that we devise horrific weapons such as CNG flame-throwers, solar cannons, and long-range ballistic electric energy-balls. the problem isnt in the technology alone...it's in our persistent and creative desire to destroy each other.

I think on-demand hydrogen is the way to go. No electrolisis needed. Have you heard of power ball technology? It works by conversion of sodium hydroxide (a common waste byproduct of industry) to sodium hydride by input of H20 and creates quite a roaring cloud of hydrogen. And because the conversion happens on board of the fuel cell, there is very little energy loss that occurs.

electric cars are more polluting than existing cars.

the US needs to REDUCE its energy consumption by about a factor of ten, and the developed world about a factor of 2 to 4 -- if the planet and human species is to survive and thrive, alive!

since those numbers are the same as the INEFFICIENCIES in our useage -- the wanton, squandering, uninsulating, throw-away, designed for inefficiency, etc. etc. consumerism --

we have the IMMEDIATE potential to create a garden planet and planetwide gusher of an economy -- again simply by insulating, making efficient and longlived technologies and systems --

and reducing the number of cars by a factor of four in the US, and a factor of two in the developed world --

and increasing the number of bicycles, pedestrians, home and local offices and gardens etc. etc. accordingly.

the RENAISSANCE is trivial, within us, and ...

wondrous beyond imagination ...

beyond a rainbow of seven billion colours ...

Millennium Twain
astrophysicist, electrical engineer,
father of the (kludge/trash) US/Intl Space Station

> electric cars are more polluting than
> existing cars.

For many years I worked as an insider in
the Coal Mining Industry, I did it to
put food on my table. I sat at the
table with the presidents of the
companies. In the early 1980's the
worlds "tons per shift" records where
being broken with the hardware and
software I designed. I've spent to much
time, in to many mines. Now I'm
designing Fire Fighting equipment. If
you've seen the Duracell battery
commercial on TV right now (for those
that still have TV's), then you have
seen my current work Embedded System
work, the TPASS3.

Coal feeds power generation plants:

A)
Big Auto says no one wants electric
cars. They have never asked *ME*, and I
bet they didn't ask you.

**I keep hearing the argument about how
electric cars don't save anything
because you still have to generate
electricity at the power plant.

This argument is flawed.**

The major design goal of any moving
vehicle is to keep its weight down.
Right now each and ever car out there
has to carry the weight of its own
pollution control system around. That
takes energy in and of it self.

Putting the pollution control system at
the power plant has no issues of weight
so they can be far more effective. Since
the electric car no longer has to
consume energy to move around its own
pollution system there is a over all
savings of resources.

B)
I spent time with the people from the
biggest coal companies and equipment
manufacturers. They could care less
about what new technologies might put
them out of business in the future. They
know its there, I've showed it to them.
They are to busy worrying about the
stock price for that quarter to care. So
much for the conspiracy angle. I don't
see it being any different in 'big oil'.

These are the players in Coal and
Electricity, ask them if they care:

Consol Energy http://www.consolenergy.com/
Constellation Energy Group http://www.constellation.com/
Joy http://www.joy.com/
http://www.msha.gov/

Also Oil is used in many other things
such as pharmaceuticals and plastics,
they are not going to be hurting that
much with the loss of gasoline.

C)
After the costs of taxes, labor and
insurance the biggest expense for a
power generation plant is fuel. They
would be jumping on buying *ANYTHING*
that was a one time cost for fuel. Lets
say you make a working Mr. Fusion
device. They hook it up as their power
source and keep pumping the stuff out on
to the grid. They know that most people
are not going to go out and buy one for
themselves. They now have zero expense
for fuel, while racking in the profits
from the output just like now. What do
you think that would do to their bottom
line? Also no major political/economic
upset here either. Just a lot of out of
work coal miners, which is NOT a good
thing. They are good people.

--
http://www.softwaresafety.net/ http://www.designer-iii.com/
http://www.unusualresearch.com/

Hey Bob - welcome and thanks much for participating. It's rare to get a true insider's viewpoint on these macro issues of global energy.

i saw the film tonight (right after a helpful email reminding me that i'd ordered it on DVD some weeks ago, and it just shipped...oh well, i love supporting the Playhouse), and i left kind of depressed. first, THANK YOU to Bob for sharing some incredible info a couple posts up....great stuff...very insightful!

however, our culture continues to shock me. my wife's "shock moment" came when we were shown how President Reagan REMOVED THE SOLAR PANELS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ROOF that President Carter had put there. i think in '08, after the elections, that's one of the first letters i'm writing to the new President: put the solar panels back up! in fact, would it be so hard to mandate solar panels on top of EVERY FEDERAL BUILDING? now THAT would be leadership by example...

anyway, i'm down because i get the overwhelming sense that our little grassroots efforts don't amount to SHIT when it comes to the big players that we're dealing with here. i know that's not a popular thing to say, especially for an activist, but it's my true feeling right now. Japanese cars are getting 42mpg, and we've got HYBRIDS that get 28. my wife's 10-YEAR-OLD FORD gets 30, for cryin' out loud! i ended up with the distinct sense that the only reason we have hybrids at all is because the auto makers ALLOW us to have them. and even those feel like a cheap bone-of-appeasement to make us think we've won some green victory.

the push at the end of the film is for plug-in hybrids. baby steps, i guess. tiny, frustrating, delicate baby steps. because setting a timetable for switching to electric vehicles would be a sign of weakness that would embolden our enemies...

My neighbors, who own parcels next to each other and live in one of the houses, recently installed solar to power the collective property. They are also looking at purchasing a hybrid, converting to plug-in, and using the solar to charge it up. Now that's what I call having a small footprint.