…and the dumb:
The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”
I guess I’d be disappointed, if I had had any expectations of brilliance on his part. But I never had any reason to, other than the bien pensant telling me I should.
That magical battery that holds gigawatts of power and can be recharged in minutes always seems to be 5 years away.
What’s sad is that Obama’s understanding of this stuff is really no better than your average person off the street. Only problem is he’s the supposed leader of the free world and should be above the fray on these things.
The wsj piece is excellent. It concludes:
Mr. Hamm calculates that if Washington would allow more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, “I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties.” That’s more than the U.S. national debt, I say. He smiles.
Yeah, almost every 5 years since I graduated from engineering school there has been a pronouncement from some company that if only they could get a few million (now billion) in government assistance, they would have a battery with the energy density of gasoline/diesel. In every case, it was a flop, and I expect nothing to change.
Isn’t this a variation of the old saw “Fusion is only 30 years away”?
Yeah, almost every 5 years since I graduated from engineering school there has been a pronouncement from some company that if only they could get a few million (now billion) in government assistance, they would have a battery with the energy density of gasoline/diesel. In every case, it was a flop, and I expect nothing to change.
You know though, it seems to be a matter of faith that it will happen. I have offered to bet several people on this and when the rubber hits the road, they back down
I read sites like the pro nuclear “Next Big Future” and the peak oil touting “Future Pundit”. Both post the latest MIT alum wonder battery claims. As a former R&D engineer and manager I can attest that there is a huge gulf between lab results and something that is manufacturable, reliable and economical. And battery technology is on the foreskin (sic) of science. There is no law of the universe that states that high capacity batteries are inevitable or that high capacity capacitor storage is feasible. I think we’ll improve both but much later and by much less than the excitable press releases and electric zealots claim.
I think I saw that battery on Knight and Day. It blowns up the plane in the end. When you think about it, that’s a lot of potential energy stored in a small space.
And less we all forget Mr. Hamm’s point, even if you believe the next big thing is coming; why hinder production now of what you need now? It’s not like oil and gas is keeping the battery from being developed.
It’s not like oil and gas is keeping the battery from being developed.
No, but low prices for them do keep wind and solar less economically viable. Which is why the loony economically ignorant environmentalists (like Obama) want the prices to be much higher. He’s told us as much.
Indeed he did. And when you look at it that way, Obama wants the poor to pay higher gas prices to subsidize the rich “green” investors.
On top of the battery that’s always 5 years away, the whole idea is ridiculous. Assume a battery with a near infinite storage capacity per mass, or use a laptop’s lithium ion that you can stick in your pocket. With the tiny battery you can drive your car down the driveway, and to go further you just keep swapping it out with a guy walking beside your car. Either way you’ve reduced your battery mass to near nothing.
But your battery is charged at about 70% efficiency from a coal or gas fired powerplant that’s 35% to 40% efficient (about the same as a diesel). Then you have about 5% losses in the grid, 10 or 20% losses in the electric motors. Multiply all that together and you get 24% efficiency, less than a diesel engine which can give a conventional car about 40 MPG. That’s with a zero-mass battery, and even giving it 100% charging efficiency only brings the efficiency up to 34%. That’s about the same as a diesel, and that’s with a perfect battery with 100% efficiency and zero mass.
For the system to give you 130 MPG you’d have to charge the battery from a powerplant that’s about 130% efficient, violating the laws of thermodynamics, or you have to use a nuclear powerplant. Wind and solar aren’t options because they don’t yet even run the street lamp over your garage, much less your house.
Drill baby drill. Our next president needs to correct this blunder. None of the current crop of candidates has the background… or focus.
Energy independence from OPEC, a real stimulus to the economy, and paying off the federal debt resulting from a figurative one stroke of the pen, and the big Zero says no. Is the occupier of the whitehouse that stupid, or does he want us impoverished and vulnerable?
Well, Peterh, if everyone is impoverished and vulnerable, then they’re all equal, and then kumbaya and stuff.
Makes one wonder if Obama knows that oil is used for more than the creation of gasoline.
Are you trying to seduce Mrs. Robinson?