The Energy Thread

[Uncle Ted]

That cool bike rack on your car is no as cool as you think it is...

What a drag: Roof racks wasted 100 million gallons of gas last year

If you live anywhere near a dirt road or a Subaru dealership, you've likely seen your fair share of roof racks on the road. Whether laden or unladen, racks are great for hauling more crap than your vehicle normally could carry. But they're not perfect. In fact, they're actually burning through gasoline at a ludicrous rate.


Researchers from Berkeley Lab and the National Renewable Energy Lab teamed up for a first-of-its-kind study that looks at the environmental impact of roof rack use in the US. The group relied on a wealth of data, including forums, highway video surveys and crowdsourcing.


According to the study, published in the journal Energy Policy, roof racks were responsible for 0.8 percent of annual light-duty vehicle fuel consumption in 2015. While that might not sound like much, it amounts to about 100 million gallons of gas, just to move roof racks down the road. It's only going to get worse, as well, as the study estimates roof rack use will increase by 200 percent by 2040.


"For comparison, the additional fuel consumption caused by roof racks is about six times larger than anticipated fuel savings from fuel cell vehicles and 40 percent of anticipated fuel savings from battery electric vehicles in 2040," the group wrote in a press release.

The reasoning is simple -- aerodynamics. Roof racks create drag, which requires the car to exert more effort to cut through the air, wasting fuel in the process. The study notes that roof racks can reduce fuel economy by up to 25 percent.
[...]

http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/roof-racks-wasted-100-million-gallons-of-gas-last-year/

[Uncle Ted]

Obama claims that wind power is cheaper in Texas than power from oil and coal... and he is right (when the wind is blowing):

Barack Obama says wind power cheaper in Texas than power from 'dirty fossil fuels'

Barack Obama, exhorting Dallas Democrats during a March 2016 Texas swing, called Republican claims that the country and planet are in sorry shape a "false narrative."


"America is pretty darn great right now," the Democratic president said.


And among great things, Obama said, Democrats believe in science and that climate change is real -- and that wind is a better bargain in Texas than traditional oil and gas.


Come again? "Right now, here in Texas," Obama said, "wind power is already cheaper than dirty fossil fuels."

Wind power sure has sizzle. In 2015, PolitiFact in Washington, D.C., found Mostly True Obama’s claim that "America is No. 1 in wind power." China led in overall wind-power capacity but the U.S. was generating more electricity from the wind. Earlier, in 2010, we rated True a declaration that Texas had "installed more wind power than any other state, and all but four countries." As of 2009, Texas boasted 9,410 megawatts of wind power — enough to power two million homes.


More recently, FactCheck.org, based at the University of Pennsylvania, dug into Obama’s claim in his 2016 State of the Union address that "in fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power." Nationally, average coal and gas prices were running less than average wind power costs. Yet in Iowa and Texas, wind energy proved cheaper, according to an Energy Information Administration analyst.


Meantime, an American Wind Energy Association blog post talking up Obama’s Iowa-Texas SOTU claim noted a 2015 study by Lazard LLC, a financial services firm, stating the cost of wind production in Texas, not counting government subsidies, runs from $36 to $51 per megawatt-hour while an average national cost for coal-fired electricity ranges from $65 to $150 per MWh and for gas, depending on the type of plant, from $52/MWh to $218/MWh.
[...]
Wind-generated electricity is offered for sale in Texas at lower prices than power fired by coal or natural gas. Unsaid: wind power, unlike electricity fueled by oil or gas, isn’t always available.


We rate Obama’s claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/apr/12/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-wind-power-cheaper-texas-power-d/

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-often-lower-fossil-fuel-power-prices/

Of course, storing that power generated from wind (e.g., with battery storage for when the wind isn't blowing) makes it very expensive.

[creekster]

Never trust anyone that thinks they know where crude prices are headed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thats right up there with never fight a land war in central asia.

[Moliere]

Never trust anyone that thinks they know where crude prices are headed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle Ted]

Gee, oil is at $43 dollars a barrell. I remember when it dipped below $30 and Goldman Sachs and Jim Cramer (and others) were saying it was going to $20 and maybe below.

I remember when oil hit $150 and they said it was going to go over $200. I don't think it went higher than $150. It is a good thing they don't follow their own advice.(that's a joke and not meant in any derrogatory way to Goldman Sachs).

I think folks like Cramer, Dent, etc. say sh*t to sell advertising, books, newsletters, and other crap and Goldman Sachs says sh*t to sell investment products that no one else will buy.

I remember Dent pushing his book about the "Roaring 2000's" and was saying the Dow was going to break 20,000. Now he is saying that the market is heading to the sh*tter and the Dow is headed below 5,000. Dent is usually so wrong that it seems best to bet against any prediction he makes.

[byu71]

Gee, oil is at $43 dollars a barrell. I remember when it dipped below $30 and Goldman Sachs and Jim Cramer (and others) were saying it was going to $20 and maybe below.

I remember when oil hit $150 and they said it was going to go over $200. I don't think it went higher than $150. It is a good thing they don't follow their own advice.(that's a joke and not meant in any derrogatory way to Goldman Sachs).

[Mormon Red Death]

Maybe because the fossil fuel companies don't want anything to come from it? (Follow the money trail to the politicians' campaign funds and super PACs.)

This idea seems cool but it may suffer from similar problems that wind power generation has: e.g., "bursty" power generation (and lack of a good way to store power), mechanical failure issues, transmission issues (i.e. good wind sites are often located in remote locations, away from the consumers of the energy), etc.

My money is on nuclear fusion and "safe" nuclear fission. Of course, it seems the politicians (especially the dems) think nuclear is a dirty word.

My money is on the graphene

[Bo Diddley]

I guess I could be wrong, but I don't think they want our help.

No, you're probably right. I doubt they want our help. Take a look at the help we've given them over the past 100 years or so. Maybe it's time to take a new approach.

[byu71]

Why do you think we need to force them? That's the last thing we should try to do.

I guess I could be wrong, but I don't think they want our help.

[Bo Diddley]

That is a great thought and idea. Now how do we force them to accept that help?

Why do you think we need to force them? That's the last thing we should try to do.

[byu71]

We should be working to help them move to other sectors of business, and working to educate the masses. We want them to be productive partners, not in a state of turmoil.

That is a great thought and idea. Now how do we force them to accept that help?

If I am not mistaken you are a Hillary or Bernie supporter?

[Bo Diddley]

It would be great if something came along and replaced fossil fuel. Can you imagine the turmoil in the Middle East if these countries couldn't placate the masses with their subsidies to their citizens?

I think Donald should wait until that happens to become President. If that situation should occur with the Middle East countries being broke, we will need him.

We should be working to help them move to other sectors of business, and working to educate the masses. We want them to be productive partners, not in a state of turmoil.

[byu71]

It would be great if something came along and replaced fossil fuel. Can you imagine the turmoil in the Middle East if these countries couldn't placate the masses with their subsidies to their citizens?

I think Donald should wait until that happens to become President. If that situation should occur with the Middle East countries being broke, we will need him.

[Uncle Ted]

Whoa. This looks really cool.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153808267231130/

We need a few of these things to pan out. You read about stuff like this all the time, but then it seems like nothing ever comes of it.

Maybe because the fossil fuel companies don't want anything to come from it? (Follow the money trail to the politicians' campaign funds and super PACs.)

This idea seems cool but it may suffer from similar problems that wind power generation has: e.g., "bursty" power generation (and lack of a good way to store power), mechanical failure issues, transmission issues (i.e. good wind sites are often located in remote locations, away from the consumers of the energy), etc.

My money is on nuclear fusion and "safe" nuclear fission. Of course, it seems the politicians (especially the dems) think nuclear is a dirty word.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Whoa. This looks really cool.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153808267231130/

We need a few of these things to pan out. You read about stuff like this all the time, but then it seems like nothing ever comes of it.