Posted on 02/29/2012 8:08:50 AM PST by Hojczyk
Hey, at least Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gave an honest answer. When asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee whether the Obama administration wants to work to get gas prices to come back down, Chu replied that they’re not focusing on that — and that higher gas prices mean more of a push for the alternative energy sources the administration wants to push:
“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”
Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
The Heritage Foundation jumped all over Chu’s comments:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Exactly my thought...
You make some excellent points, and I agree. All I know is, that anything is better than a group of politicians trying to “necessarily skyrocket” the cost of energy. Technological advancement literally works miracles. I see great things instore in our future/lifetimes. As long as the regulation stranglehold can’t forever keep us all in mudhuts, that’s the real goal.
>I think you mean 300K which is room temperature. Most useful superconductors operate at 77K which is the temp of liquid nitrogen. That is actually considered a high-temp superconductor. In the past a superconductor needed near 0-K temperatures or liquid Helium temps to operate.
I specified 300C for a reason. I am well aware that 298K is room temperature. However when it comes to high temperature superconductors, one of their properties is that past a certain temperature (~1/2 of their superconducting threshold) the allowed current density drops dramatically. Hence you have to pick a temperature well above room temperature. Now granted I probably should have said 400C, but I went for an easier goal.
>Regardless, all one accomplishes with superconductivity is low loss to the I2-R law. Or, one can transmit DC power long distances with low loss. For vehicle propulsion you still need an energy source and hydrogen isn’t an energy source, it is a energy conversion method. Every conversion method loses energy in the process. Petroleum and associated products like natural gas, on the other hand was produced either during the planet’s creation or as a process of photosynthesis, decay, and concentration. Petroleum is a net-net energy source. Everything else, except perhaps for water, solar, and wind, has a high percentage of loss in the production. Unfortunately, to make motor fuel from wind, water, and sun, requires conversion, unless your car has a sail.
You can use superconductors as batteries by running the current in a loop. You generate the power from a nuke plant (best option) and then use that to charge up your superconducting loops.
The issue with all electric cars now and for the foreseeable future is power storage. Battery technology is simply not up to the task. However a superconducting loop solves this problem.
>Only in science fiction. Besides, I don’t know where you get your 400C superconductor. If the resistance is anything other than zero it isn’t a superconductor.
People have stored energy in current loops using superconductors now. That isn’t science fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage
As for the 400C superconductor, yes, they don’t exist yet, and as for the current density issue, I highly recommend you read up on the issue since you evidently don’t know what you are talking about.
Try:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/scbc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
http://www.imagesco.com/articles/superconductors/determining-critical-magnetic-field.html
Do not presume to lecture me when you don’t have the first clue on the subject.
If enough progress is made on high temperature superconducting, you can solve a whole lot of energy storage issues. This is a fact. This is what I was speculating on.
I’m sure that would be considered a “racist hate crime”.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. The national average price for a gallon of CNG is $.85 cents a gallon. This means if gas is currently at $3.69 a gallon, you are saving at $2.84 a gallon just by owning a CNG car. That can quickly add up to huge savings! On average, owning a natural gas vehicle can save you from $3,000-$5,000 dollars a year on fuel expenses.
Some of the posted comments between the mooselim’s regarding that video are hilarious. Apparently the Shia do the self-flagellation thingy and the Sunni’s think it’s sacrilege. We just need to get out of the way and let them blow each other up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.