...to get economy moving forward:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081123/ap_on_bi_ge/obama_economy


Obama is calling on congress to work on his plan and to have things ready for him to sign on inauguration day. Hit the ground running as his aids put it. The cost of this plan may well be past the $700 billion bailout plan. It has to be huge to have any effect at all. Now this will NOT be paid for by tax increases. Some are suggesting a two year refrain from tax increases. This will all be paid for out of debt. It must therefore be successful. If not, it would put un on even worse financial footing.


WARNING!!!!!

WE CAN’T FIX THE ECONOMY WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE PETROLEUM SUPPLY PROBLEM

The grand jobs plan MUST address our petroleum use. if Obama’s plan is successful but does not reduce our petroleum use from pre-financial meltdown levels we will just see the price of oil jump to levels seen this summer or higher. The oil supply problems have not been solved! They only seem like they are solved because the world is using much less than the 85 mbd of global petroleum supply we have been using for the past couple of years. The low price of oil is also keeping oil investments down which is only going to cause more petroleum supply problems down the line. This is a massive and dire situation.

WARNING!!!!


I just cannot stress how strongly I feel about this point. We can hold off on global warming and even my beloved solar panels. We need to aggressively attack the petroleum demand issue first and foremost.


Things that address petroleum use:

1) Transportation - EVs, Plug-in hybrids, high fuel economy vehicles (European and Japanese like numbers). These need to be build and delivered to the public. Incentives will be needed at first. Taxes to make people move from petroleum burning technology may be needed (cigarette tax, carbon tax, etc. ). I don’t like taxes but we need a way to reduce petroleum use. High price is the best way (just look what happened the summer - massive reduction in gasoline use).

2) Conservation - massive plans to reduce the amount of petroleum we use. Increases in efficiency of our daily operations. Engage all Americans on this. We need to increase the amount of economic activity we perform per barrel of oil. Turning off your lights will not help! That uses electricity. Our electrical grid uses almost no oil to generate electricity. Converting homes and companies from using heating oil or making those buildings and homes more efficient is a top conservation priority. How can we cut down on miles both private and commercially should be the question on every American’s mind.

3) Reduce the amount of Petrochemicals we use. Find alternatives for petroleum based products like fertilizer, pesticides, plastics, etc. This is a huge and demanding task. Great for some massive funding!

4) Engage the military. Not to fight but to transition. They should be directed to cut petroleum use every year from now out. A massive transition away from petroleum is just what the military needs reinvent itself. By doing so it will also provide massive amounts of jobs for Americans. Electrification of military vehicles, hydrogen fuel research. GET US OFF OF PETROLEUM.

5) Massive electrical storage technology investment. Almost everything depends on our ability to practically store electrical energy. We must invent and mass produce great batteries. It’s that simple. A great battery solves just about every major problem we have. From global warming to energy independence to global petroleum supply problems. Quick-charging batteries are the key.

6) Natural Gas investment. This is a short term solution (it is still a fossil fuel and thus is unsustainable in the long-term) but it burns much cleaner than any other fossil fuel and we have good reserves in North America. It will buy us time. Trucks, taxis, and personal cars around the world are running on CNG and so can we.

7) A huge job can be to get charging infrastructure for EVs and plug-in hybrids. Check out what Project Better Place is doing in California. Many do not agree with the business plan or swap-out stations and that is fine. We will still need an OPEN network for all of the new electric vehicles that are going to be coming out. Start with normal charging (not quick-charge) because they will be needed even for advanced batteries and they don’t require special electrical infrastructure (huge power delivery capability). Now that California has signed on for Project Better Place that can be a great pilot project for the rest of the country. We need the shotgun approach with many pilot projects. However, to create massive jobs and USEFUL infrastructure, it’s hard to deny putting in normal charging infrastructure (it should also be upgradeable for two-way communication via our future smart grid). Let’s not put in infrastructure that does not have a pathway to the future. That future is all electric cars with quick-charge capabilities that help store the nations electricity. The amount of energy stored in today’s cars is several magnitudes greater than what our electrical grid can produce. Intermittent resources (wind and solar) are a perfect match for the EV with it’s massive electrical storage capability. Ninety percent of American cars are idle at any given point. That means Ninety percent of our future electric fleet can be connected to the grid and being used as storage. Make sure the best minds in our country help design this OPEN charging network. If not, it will need to be torn down and rebuilt at great cost and effort (will take a long time).

8) Drive the country towards second generation biofuels. Our first generation biofuel efforts are ONLY good at moving us towards sustainable and high EROI (Energy return on investment) energy sources. Ethanol produced by food crops is not sustainable and useful by itself. It usefulness is in helping to build the infrastructure for biofuels. Let’s make that clear to everyone. Algae, cellulotic waste, advanced fungi and bacteria, etc. we need massive research and development and well funded pilot projects for promising technologies. You will not know if something is good until you get it to volume production. Only then will you know the problems and the promise. Only expect a small percentage of successful projects. We need the shotgun approach but a massive, nationwide infrastructure build out must only use a proven technology. That is why we need large scale pilot projects.



WE MUST ADDRESS THE PETROLEUM PROBLEM FIRST. ECONOMIES CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT ENERGY. WE HAVE A MASSIVE ENERGY PROBLEM.

Good ideas, but posting on the forum only does so much. Is there any way to get this to the Obama administration? Im sure they have thought through all this as well. I think the most important thing to do, not only notifying elected officials, is to have advertise these ideas to the every day public. Similar to what Pickens did with his plan.

Our fellow Americans need to know that the drop in oil is only temporary, and we need to use this time to address the issue before it goes back up. I try to drive as efficiently as possible myself, but im only one person. But unlike pickens, I dont have millions and millions to adversite :) All I can do is spread the information by email/word of mouth.

I just heard one of President Elect Obama's advisors saying that they may introduce a $500 Billion stimulus package without any offsetting tax increases or spending cuts. He also said they may delay phasing out Bush's tax cuts for the rich beyond their current expiration of 2010. Which could mean till the end of his presidency.

Let's see...

1) Backing off immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. CHECK.
2) Keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy. CHECK.
3) Backing off immediate closing of Gitmo. CHECK.
4) Massive deficit spending. CHECK.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

I am not a fan of another massive bail out. In fact, just as many predicted once we started down that road, it would never end. How about we stop government waste. Stop giving money away. Stop imports that are not made with the same U.S. regulations and labor standards. I agree that we need an energy plan, but until we stop giving our money and good jobs away, this is gonna get real ugly.

I am not a fan of another massive bail out. In fact, just as many predicted once we started down that road, it would never end. How about we stop government waste. Stop giving money away. Stop imports that are not made with the same U.S. regulations and labor standards. I agree that we need an energy plan, but until we stop giving our money and good jobs away, this is gonna get real ugly.

Sorry to disappoint, but we haven't had a true anti waste President since, well, EVER. Reagan probably came the closest. Now we have Dems across the board. Whatever else their party might be, anti spending sure aint it.

We have two parties:
Dems: Tax and spend.
Reps: Don't tax but spend anyway.

The Don't Spend party simply doesn't exist.

We handcuff our industry with high taxes and regulation in the name of 'fairness' and then complain when they move jobs overseas.

I hate to say it, but protectionism might be the only option on the table to combat this trend. Not that its the best option, just the only one Democrats would ever consider. Of course, I don't think our allies are going to like that a whole lot!

Reagan came the closest you say? Ever head of Star Wars or the DEA? That guy grew government and put us in a huge deficit. His lip service to ending government waste is overshadowed by the gigantic and extremely wasteful department he created and the tens of billions he threw away at imaginary space lasers. If we're going to spend lots of money we might as well get something good in return.


This stimulus package will no doubt be designed to put some of the jobless to work and get started on long overdue infrastructure upgrades. I think something along these lines has to be done no matter what happens. What bothers me is the direct comparison every single journalist seems to be making between now and the great depression. I'm no expert but I know the US wasn't so incredibly laden down with debt in 1929. Most people have no concept of just how bad it is!

Lampcord: the reason industry moves overseas is all the free trade deals that they lobbied so hard for. Are you saying we should dismantle our regulatory agencies to create a business environment identical to Malaysia? Somalia has no government regulation at all and business is flourishing! And corporations pay less tax in the US than anywhere else in the first world, contrary to what McCain was saying.

And corporations pay less tax in the US than anywhere else in the first world, contrary to what McCain was saying.

Really? Show me a country that has higher corporate rates than the US that produces cars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Here's a summary to save you some time digging through the table:
US 39% (+ up to 12% State for a whopping 51%!)
Canada 35.5%
Mexico 29%
UK 28%
China 25%
S Korea 25%
Japan 30%
Germany 29.8%
Austria 25%
Italy 33%
France 33.33%

The reason factories move to Mexico is simple:

Average compensation for UAW worker: $72 / hour
Average compensation for auto worker in Mexico: $3 / hour

Don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out.

We have two parties:
Dems: Tax and spend.
Reps: Don't tax but spend anyway.

The Don't Spend party simply doesn't exist.



That is the truth. In fact Bush has bar none outspent any other president except maybe Roosevelt (I'm not sure and I don't have time right to find out) but at least Roosevelt left the country in a far better position than he got it in (winning the war, Americans richest era vs. the midst of the Great Depression).

Anyway, Texas is dead on. Being reliant on oil has absolutely no upside. It's dirty, it's expensive, it's largely non American, it's money going to fund terrorism, it's running out, it's innefficient to transport (imagine how much cheaper it is to send electricity to your house instantly than it is to ship it from the other side of the world and then ship it to a refining facility and then ship that to a distribution tank facility and then ship that to a gas station and then you have to drive to the gas station to get it) and like I've said before, if Obama isn't the one to get us off oil. I don't know who else has the political motivation to do it. Hopefully he knows it. People are all saying that everyone complains about being addicted to oil but no one does anything about it, but how am I supposed to do anything about it when our government is letting our automakers go bankrupt without hardly mentioning the fact that these are the guys most able to help us get off oil, and the government is funding the fight for more oil overseas instead of coming up with a sustainable solution. What am I supposed to do making $30k a year barely paying my bills? Make a $20 donation to fund battery research?

Really? Show me a country that has higher corporate rates than the US that produces cars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Here's a summary to save you some time digging through the table:
US 39% (+ up to 12% State for a whopping 51%!)
Canada 35.5%
Mexico 29%
UK 28%
China 25%
S Korea 25%
Japan 30%
Germany 29.8%
Austria 25%
Italy 33%
France 33.33%

The reason factories move to Mexico is simple:

Average compensation for UAW worker: $72 / hour
Average compensation for auto worker in Mexico: $3 / hour

Don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out.

There have been discussions on these forums before about corporate tax code. The listed tax rate is meaningless when you don't take into account tax write-offs and other loopholes. There have been many studies that show corporations pay less in tax in the US than the rest of the G8/G20/whatever. But they pay even less in third world countries and have no responsibility whatsoever for worker safety or environmental damage, so I guess we'd better de-regulate things some more to compete.

And before you accuse me of it I'm going to point out that I'm not defending the UAW, I'm just pointing out where you're wrong.

There have been discussions on these forums before about corporate tax code. The listed tax rate is meaningless when you don't take into account tax write-offs and other loopholes. There have been many studies that show corporations pay less in tax in the US than the rest of the G8/G20/whatever. But they pay even less in third world countries and have no responsibility whatsoever for worker safety or environmental damage, so I guess we'd better de-regulate things some more to compete.

And before you accuse me of it I'm going to point out that I'm not defending the UAW, I'm just pointing out where you're wrong.

OK, I might be wrong on that. I'll have to research. I admit I was basing this purely on the rates themselves without looking at other factors.

Corporate tax rates actually has a lot more to do with the issues than people give it credit for. Considering many Japanese companies (including auto makers) are subsidized, comparing GM and Toyota is very difficult.

This is why Obama needs to address the horrible tax policy we have in this country as well as all the other issues most people think about.

Average compensation for UAW worker: $72 / hour
Average compensation for auto worker in Mexico: $3 / hour

Don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out.
Nor do you have to be Einstein to figure out that the $73/hour figure is a fiction propagated by those founts of truth, Fox News and talk radio. You know, the same guys who told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqi people would greet us a liberators.

This is just another fabrication in a long line of fabrications. According to the Center for Automotive Research, the actual rate is $28 or $14, depending on when you were hired. Fully loaded with benefits the rate is maybe $25 or $38. In any event those numbers are a long way from $72.

And the biggest factor in the huge legacy costs for pensioners is health care. Too bad GM and the rest of the industry was vehemently opposed to health care reform on ideological grounds when it came up last decade! They've done a 180 ever since it became painfully obvious that they were going bankrupt and now we're finally going to attempt to fix the health care system again.

The UAW sounds like it enables terrible work ethic among other things but I think mismanagement from the top has more to do with GM's uncompetitiveness.

The UAW sounds like it enables terrible work ethic among other things but I think mismanagement from the top has more to do with GM's uncompetitiveness.
The work rules are very complex. The contracts with the dealers are complex. The contracts with the suppliers are complex.

My guess is that all this complexity is the reason why GM is so bureaucratic. You probably need a conference with legal specialists every time you want someone to put in a different bolt.

Here is one I like.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/01/at-witz-end-what-auto-ceos-should-have-said/

Texas, I want to point out that Barack doesn't have "aids" as you state. He was aides. They work for him, not on him. ;)

Texas, I want to point out that Barack doesn't have "aids" as you state. He was aides. They work for him, not on him. ;)


How do you know they don't work on him? He HAND SELECTED each and every one. ;)


P.S. That was funny but if you are going to be so picky on spelling errors then I must point out that you also made an error correcting my error. It's "He has aides" not "He was aides". ;)

Stephen Colbert is still in the running......

only colbert can make the team of rivals complete

Why no domestic drilling? We have it HERE, let's use it! No mention of nuclear power, either.

All in all, the ideas are good, but it's mostly "let's do this, and let's do that"... to almost all of them I ask "HOW?"

That's the question. That's the question that was frequently in my mind when Obama was campaigning. HOW are you going to do all that?

Why no domestic drilling? We have it HERE, let's use it! No mention of nuclear power, either.

All in all, the ideas are good, but it's mostly "let's do this, and let's do that"... to almost all of them I ask "HOW?"

That's the question. That's the question that was frequently in my mind when Obama was campaigning. HOW are you going to do all that?




How?

What's wrong with the PBP plan (or something like it) - massive amounts of electric cars storing massive amounts of renewable energy resources? To me it's a match made in heaven. We can add up to around 20% renewables to our grid before we need more energy storage (if you don't include the batteries in the electric cars and charging stations).

What do you have against that? The intermittency problem is solved with the electrical storage in the cars. It will take us a decade of hard work just to get up to where we need better electrical energy storage technology. We can start today and go with only renewable and sustainable options. What's the beef? We can spend trillions and decades on just that. If we do, there will be a major reduction in our imported oil use. That's a savings of several hundred billion dollars a year.

That's how. ;)

What do you have against that? The intermittency problem is solved with the electrical storage in the cars.

I doubt the intermittency problem is solved by cars. Car charging will be incredibly predictable (mostly at night) compared to weather patterns. Cars on the grid will not solve a week-long cloudy, calm (low-wind) weather pattern.

In my opinion, the question isn't how, but how much. The technologies are there, but are we willing to make the right choice and invest in them now when energy is cheap or wait until there is a real energy crisis when energy is much more expensive, making the necessary investments wind, geothermal, solar, and storage more expensive? We should use our fossil fuel resources to bootstrap our way into a non-fossil energy system while fossil fuels are cheap. We also need to be honest about the short-term consequences to energy prices (they will go up). The problem is convincing people to tolerate investments now, and higher energy prices now, in order to avoid very, very painful adjustments later when we need to do the same things in crisis mode (with more expensive fossil energy). We need to plan ahead. My only substantial disagreement with Texas is about cost.

I think the best way for the government to be involved in the "how" is two-fold. First, fund research on massive scale in universities and national labs. Second, regulate CO2 emissions EPA-style. The government may also need to help "pave the way" for rights-of-way for transmission lines and public transportation.

I doubt the intermittency problem is solved by cars. Car charging will be incredibly predictable (mostly at night) compared to weather patterns. Cars on the grid will not solve a week-long cloudy, calm (low-wind) weather pattern.

In my opinion, the question isn't how, but how much. The technologies are there, but are we willing to make the right choice and invest in them now when energy is cheap or wait until there is a real energy crisis when energy is much more expensive, making the necessary investments wind, geothermal, solar, and storage more expensive? We should use our fossil fuel resources to bootstrap our way into a non-fossil energy system while fossil fuels are cheap. We also need to be honest about the short-term consequences to energy prices (they will go up). The problem is convincing people to tolerate investments now, and higher energy prices now, in order to avoid very, very painful adjustments later when we need to do the same things in crisis mode (with more expensive fossil energy). We need to plan ahead. My only substantial disagreement with Texas is about cost.

I think the best way for the government to be involved in the "how" is two-fold. First, fund research on massive scale in universities and national labs. Second, regulate CO2 emissions EPA-style. The government may also need to help "pave the way" for rights-of-way for transmission lines and public transportation.




For readers wondering how much power and energy we are talking about for an electrified transporation fleet check out the following:


250,000,000 vehicles in the U.S. (approx.)
90% connected to the grid (approx.)
110 V at 15 amps per vehicle (approx.)
30 kWh battery pack size per vehicle (rough guess)

Total amount of energy storage potential on the grid:
250,000,000 * .90 * 30 kWh = 6750000000000 Wh = 6.75 TWh

Maximum power that can be delivered to the grid:
250,000,000 * .90 * 110 V * 15 amps = 371250000000 W = 371 GW


If you compare to what the entire U.S. uses those numbers are truly impressive.

Energy:
Average amount of Electricity generated by coal and NG in the U.S. per day = 8 TWh
Average amount of total energy used per day in the U.S.(2005) = 79.5 TWh
Percentage of energy coming from petroleum = 40%
Average amount of petroleum energy used per day in the U.S. = 31.8 TWh


Power:
Average electricity generated by fossil fuels per day (2007): 554 GW for Summer and 453 GW for winter
Note: 70.8% of electricity was supplied by fossil fuels

As shown, the potential for an all electric transportation fleet to be used for effective grid energy storage is massive. There is an almost perfect relationship to having a smart grid that is supplied by renewable energy resources like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. that is balanced and backed up by our electrified transportation fleet.

Now, about the entire U.S. being covered by cloud cover for a whole week (extremely rare event) we will have to keep a lot of backup power plants ready for action. It's much better to save our natural gas for backup then for continuous use.

Now, as I have mentioned before it will cost trillions of dollars and take more than a decade just to get up to the point where we will need more electrical energy storage. By then we should have many more options available.

Given that oil is hitting below $40 per barrel, I don't think it is the first and only priority, although it still needs to be dealt with.

Credit / capital markets are still first priority, as we've watched over a couple dozen banks shut down in 2008 alone, and the credit card crisis looms large on the horizon.

Picken's Plan still makes a lot of sense as a near term solution to keep US dollars in the US. Renewables for electricity and natural gas for vehicles - too easy I guess.

For readers wondering how much power and energy we are talking about for an electrified transporation fleet check out the following:


250,000,000 vehicles in the U.S. (approx.)
90% connected to the grid (approx.)
110 V at 15 amps per vehicle (approx.)
30 kWh battery pack size per vehicle (rough guess)

Minimum cost of batteries alone (optimistic):
$250/kWh*250,000,000 vehicles*30kWh/vehicle = $2 trillion
Probably closer to $3-4 trillion
On top of that, you need to build new vehicles.
Grand total would be on the order of $6-8 trillion just for the vehicles.


Total amount of energy storage potential on the grid:
250,000,000 * .90 * 30 kWh = 6750000000000 Wh = 6.75 TWh

Maximum power that can be delivered to the grid:
250,000,000 * .90 * 110 V * 15 amps = 371250000000 W = 371 GW


Problem: when the majority of the cars are on the road during rush hour is when a huge ramp in power is needed as the day gets started. Do you assume most people will plug in at work? Do you think people will want to have depleted batteries after work?



As shown, the potential for an all electric transportation fleet to be used for effective grid energy storage is massive. There is an almost perfect relationship to having a smart grid that is supplied by renewable energy resources like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. that is balanced and backed up by our electrified transportation fleet.

Need I ask for a reference, or once again do we have to believe you solved the grid problem on your own and just believe you?



Now, about the entire U.S. being covered by cloud cover for a whole week (extremely rare event) we will have to keep a lot of backup power plants ready for action. It's much better to save our natural gas for backup then for continuous use.

The grid is and will be regional in 10 years and probably 20, so the weather problem doesn't need to be national. The issue of renewable intermittency is one of the reasons a renewable grid is going to be more expensive. If we do as you propose and have all that backup infrastructure to generate power it's going to be expensive because it will have such a low capacity factor. People will need to keep those facilities ready run.



Now, as I have mentioned before it will cost trillions of dollars and take more than a decade just to get up to the point where we will need more electrical energy storage. By then we should have many more options available.

The cars alone will cost trillions of dollars.

I'm not saying we shouldn't build the cars. I just think it makes more sense to have the minimal amount of batteries in a car as necessary to provide typical daily driving needs (i.e. PHEV-40 some or PHEV-20 for me) and use the money that would have been spent on underutilized batteries for EVs on dedicated grid storage making grid control simpler and more reliable with lower capital investment, while also providing people with a better vehicle (PHEV is better than EV for many reasons). To maximize the use and usefulness of battery investment, you want to minimize the batteries in the car while maximizing the displaced fuel by having the minimal battery capacity in each vehicle needed to displace daily driving. This reduces battery weight in the car as well. Pure EVs don't make much sense to me nor does V2G. PHEV + dedicated grid storage seems like it would make better use of our resources and be much easier to implement and more reliable.

Bottom line: we need to be honest about the fact that a renewable energy infrastructure is going to mean more expensive energy and massive investment in the short term, but it will payoff big time in the long run in many, many ways.

How?

What's wrong with the PBP plan (or something like it) - massive amounts of electric cars storing massive amounts of renewable energy resources? To me it's a match made in heaven. We can add up to around 20% renewables to our grid before we need more energy storage (if you don't include the batteries in the electric cars and charging stations).

What do you have against that? The intermittency problem is solved with the electrical storage in the cars. It will take us a decade of hard work just to get up to where we need better electrical energy storage technology. We can start today and go with only renewable and sustainable options. What's the beef? We can spend trillions and decades on just that. If we do, there will be a major reduction in our imported oil use. That's a savings of several hundred billion dollars a year.

That's how. ;)

I don't think it's not possible.... ever. I think it's something that is more like 20 years worth of work to be where it's envisioned to be.

Think about it now - there are practically no electric cars. Battery manufacturing is not up to the capacity.

... anyway, it's a good DESTINATION, but it will take a long time to get there. There will likely be many increments, starting with hybrids that we already have, and expansion on that platform, then plug in hybrids, then plug in electrics. PBP is a good destination, but I think realistically it's a long way off. Energy is best spent on those increments while we build up to a PBP type infrastructure.

Minimum cost of batteries alone (optimistic):
$250/kWh*250,000,000 vehicles*30kWh/vehicle = $2 trillion
Probably closer to $3-4 trillion
On top of that, you need to build new vehicles.
Grand total would be on the order of $6-8 trillion just for the vehicles.

Problem: when the majority of the cars are on the road during rush hour is when a huge ramp in power is needed as the day gets started. Do you assume most people will plug in at work? Do you think people will want to have depleted batteries after work?

Need I ask for a reference, or once again do we have to believe you solved the grid problem on your own and just believe you?

The grid is and will be regional in 10 years and probably 20, so the weather problem doesn't need to be national. The issue of renewable intermittency is one of the reasons a renewable grid is going to be more expensive. If we do as you propose and have all that backup infrastructure to generate power it's going to be expensive because it will have such a low capacity factor. People will need to keep those facilities ready run.


The cars alone will cost trillions of dollars.

I'm not saying we shouldn't build the cars. I just think it makes more sense to have the minimal amount of batteries in a car as necessary to provide typical daily driving needs (i.e. PHEV-40 some or PHEV-20 for me) and use the money that would have been spent on underutilized batteries for EVs on dedicated grid storage making grid control simpler and more reliable with lower capital investment, while also providing people with a better vehicle (PHEV is better than EV for many reasons). To maximize the use and usefulness of battery investment, you want to minimize the batteries in the car while maximizing the displaced fuel by having the minimal battery capacity in each vehicle needed to displace daily driving. This reduces battery weight in the car as well. Pure EVs don't make much sense to me nor does V2G. PHEV + dedicated grid storage seems like it would make better use of our resources and be much easier to implement and more reliable.

Bottom line: we need to be honest about the fact that a renewable energy infrastructure is going to mean more expensive energy and massive investment in the short term, but it will payoff big time in the long run in many, many ways.






Yes, trillions and decades. Nobody said it's going to be easy. I just said it's necessary.

A trillion does sound like a lot but last summer we were sending out on average 700 billion dollars a year on imported energy. If you look at it that way a trillion dollars doesn't sound that far fetched.

Our main difference is that you feel we should only put enough batteries in the car to cover average daily power and then continue to use petroleum for anything else. No charging infrastructure is needed. Additionally, just build nuke plants to fill those batteries.

I guess I just see our future a little differently. Not that either of us is more correct. I just see it working as a completed system and see it as a very well balanced infrastructure that is powered by renewables. Transportation is powered by electricity only. Trucks and big vehicles are yet to be determined (depends on technology - biofuels, hybrids, advanced electrical energy storage).

I also feel going the plug-in hybrid way is a good path to take, seeing how we have absolutely no infrastructure other than our petroleum one.

We will probably have to wait for PBP to show a working model before we go all in. That is fine. All of the plug-ins we make up to that point can still be used on the open network. They would even end up using even less gasoline.

As for the solar - EV connection. I don't need references. I just showed you the calculations of what is possible. I also pointed out (with included references) that we can add about 20 percent renewables to our current grid before we have to put in more electrical energy storage. You want to fully utilize the batteries but don't feel V2G is a good idea? I don't understand your logic there. With great software and knowing the needs of the driver you can make the system very effective and use the batteries to their fullest. Every year the electrical energy storage devices will get lighter, last longer, and be cheaper. Where it goes nobody know. I do know we are only at the beginning of what is possible.

I don't think it's not possible.... ever. I think it's something that is more like 20 years worth of work to be where it's envisioned to be.





Please read your sentence again. You think 20 years is never? I think 20 years is just a blip in our history. It takes at least 20 years just to bring an infant to maturity.

At our stage in human development many people feel like you do. That is why the world's educational systems are so underfunded.

Eventually, we will figure out that it's very good for us to try to fully utilize our impressive brainpower. The countries and individuals that do will be able to have higher standards of livings that those that don’t.

True investment usually take time to reach fruition. Real change also takes courage. It's not comfortable and can be very scary. That's why most big change is brought about by big problems. Most people need to have no other option but to change. We live in a very reactive world.