Slashdot Log In
Bay Area To Install Electric Vehicle Grid
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 25, 2008 05:50 PM
from the recharge-it dept.
from the recharge-it dept.
Mike writes "Recently San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland unveiled a massive concerted effort to become the electric vehicle capitol of the United States. The Bay Area will be partnering with Better Place to create an essential electric vehicle infrastructure, marking a huge step towards the acceptance of electric vehicles as a viable alternative to those that run on fossil fuels." Inhabitat.com has some conceptual illustrations and a map showing EV infrastructure, such as battery exchange stations, stretching from Sacramento to San Diego — though this is far more extensive than the Bay Area program actually announced, which alone is estimated to cost $1 billion.
Related Stories
Submission: Bay Area to Install Electric Vehicle Grid! by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Doomed by its creators (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't that SF wants to be electric-friendly, or even environmentally friendly. The problem is that they are doing it simply to cash in on a trendy idea. The union bosses responsible for building this grid will charge SF taxpayers billions to produce a sub-par grid, that will need constant repair, and that is unlikely to be utilized.
Why? Because the same people who promote electric cars, are also the people that recoil from even the word "nuclear"... and thus ensure that while the rest of the world forges ahead in power generation technology, we are stuck with 30+ year old inefficient uranium-guzzlers.
Perhaps people should consider that it's better to do things because they are the right thing, not because they are the "in thing".
Re:Doomed by its creators (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the same people who promote electric cars, are also the people that recoil from even the word "nuclear"... and thus ensure that while the rest of the world forges ahead in power generation technology, we are stuck with 30+ year old inefficient uranium-guzzlers.
That's not true. Some of us promote electric cars, along with a renewable energy infrastructure which would include nuclear power, in a safe and responsible way.
Parent
Re:Doomed by its creators (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Modern Feeder-Breeder reactors are safe, environmentally friendly and efficient.
They can not only produce 10 times more energy for a given supply of uranium, but they could cure the worlds problem of disposing of long term nuclear waste by using it as recycled fuel. Not only this, but what little waste is produced has a short enough half-life to be a threat for a manageable few hundreds of years instead of thousands. They do not have the land use ecological impact that solar does.
Combined with balanced use of solar thermal and tapping Americas northern and offshore oil and natural gas reserves, it presents us the option of becoming completely independent of both foreign energy and dirty coal that we currently burn (fun fact: the average US coal plant releases more radioactive waste into the environment than a conventional nuclear power plant).
The infrastructure SF is implementing is admirable. The vision I have for a good future also includes electrified railways and highways with charging rails that allow drivers to run off of grid power on longer trips, allowing us to remove the use of oil as a significant factor in transportation cost throughout the continental US even with the current generation of relatively low power density batteries.
Parent
Re:Doomed by its creators (Score:5, Informative)
It's between 60-100 times and that is without taking into they can use the depleted uranium that is left over from the enrichment ( if you enrich the uranium from 0.7% to 2.5% you're left with a bunch of depleted uranium so the total quantity of natural uranium used is 3.5 times the content of teh fuel rods ).
Thus if you compare it with a PWR running at 2.5% enrichment and consuming 1% of the enriched fuel rod, then a breeder will be able to extract about 100 times the energy from the same fuel rod, but if you consider the consumption of natural uranium it's even more than that by up to a factor of 3.5. Now you could of course recycle the plutonium as MOX in traditional reactors, which would not be as efficient, but this is where the figure of 60 times comes from.
However, that only considers the heat generated, most breeder designs also operate at higher temperatures than present reactors so they get a better electric conversion efficiency ( 40%-45% as compared to 30%-35% for PWRs ) so you gain another 28% or so there.
Additionally most designs of breeders seem to be able to use thorium which is about 4 times as abundant as uranium. (thou some thermal designs, like CANDU , might have this ability as well ).
Thus depending on if you are interested in heat or electricity, and depending on which of the many designs used today you compare with, and depending on if you want to consider the possibility of using Thorium, breeders could produce between 60 and 1600 times as much energy from available fissile material as could traditional designs.
Of course in practice this is somewhat irrelevant since even the low estimate would easily cower present energy demand for thousands of years. Even the existing nuclear waste contains enough uranium to last a century or more.
Parent
Re:Doomed by its creators (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Doomed by its creators (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that California's completely unique zero-emissions standards were instrumental in getting electric cars created in the first place, right? That California has been investing heavily in alternative car reasearch including pure electric, hybrid, and hydrogen technology?
SF is not doing this simply to cash in on a trendy idea. As far back as I can remember, alternative fuel stations have been a priority. While most states have 1 or 2 Hydrogen fueling stations planned for some point in the future, according to the National Hydrogen Association [hydrogenassociation.org] California has 28 currently active.
San Francisco has been pushing alternative vehicle technologies for years. Just because one aspect is now coming to fruition doesn't mean it is a cynically shortsighted cash grab. It may still be an underutilized overpaid attempt to slay a windmill, but it is completely in line with the bay area's ongoing and slightly quixotic idiom.
Parent
Re:Doomed by its creators (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you understand what this new electrical grid is all about. This project is about a dynamic grid, one that uses constant-update price changes and continuous feedback systems to self-stabilize.
Let's say that you plug your car in when you get home, at about 6:00 PM. You know, when everybody and their uncle is busy burning power for home heating, TVs, and getting ready for dinner. The price of electricity is high, and your car, in constant communication with the grid, doesn't begin charging until the price of electricity drops around 10 PM.
This continuous feedback loop can tie in through your home heating, your refrigerator, etc. so that they shut off during periods when the electricity is in peak demand, and work extra when juice is cheap.
This reduces strain on the power grid, and makes better use of existing resources which are today massively overbuilt simply to handle the 10 minutes during the year when load is at its highest.
This solves a number of very real problems. For example, Wind power is very bad for power grids when it supplies more than about 10% of the total power fed into the grid - wind gusts cause voltage surges and low-grade brownouts that destabilize the power grid.
However, if you had a large number of distributed, high-amperage charge/discharge power storage units (such as a bunch of electric cars!) you could use them to act as electrical inertia to absorb sudden spikes in power.
The net effect will be a cheaper, more reliable power grid, one that could even stay running for short periods of time even if the mains to the power plants are cut, simply because the affected area would see a dramatic spike in the price of electricity, causing everything non-essential to shut off, while the electric vehicles would start backfeeding electricity, earning a profit for their owners.
This is for real!
Parent
Let's anticipate a common response (Score:5, Insightful)
"You're just substituting one energy source for another. You're not doing anything about the energy shortage."
Yes you are. It's a lot more efficient to have convert all your chemical energy into electricity at one central spot than to have millions of engines that the vehicles have to carry around with them. I believe the efficiency factor is something like 60%. Besides, there are non-chemical ways to generate electricity.
let's give an inconvenient answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:let's give an inconvenient answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:let's give an inconvenient answer (Score:4, Informative)
.
1 Over-production.
Prices collapse. Markets collapse.
2 Over-production.
The land is exhausted. That requires different plantings to repair some of the damage - extra tilling, a lot of fertilizer.
Rebuilding can take decades - consider the dust bowls of the thirties.
3 Green space. Conservation.
The land may be marginal for commercial agriculture. That doesn't mean it has no value as wild habitat or as a buffer zone against suburban development. Politically in the states, "subsidies to the family farm" is an easier sell than a government-owned "land trust."
"Marginal for agriculture" usually implies a shortage of water, distance from major markets, and a host of other problems that will show up later - in what you pay for gas, electric, water, sewage service, and so on.
Parent
Re:let's give an inconvenient answer (Score:5, Informative)
A calculation of the German version of the AAA, the ADAC, showed that the electric smart that is currently on the road, would actually create more CO2 per km than the combustion engine version, IF the power plant was solely coal based
This did not seem quite right, so I ran the numbers for the electric and non-electric versions of the MINI:
Electric Mini: 2.095 lbs CO2 * .233 kWh/mile == .488 lbs CO2/mile
Gas Mini: 13,400 lbs / 15000 Miles == .893 lbs CO2/mile
So it looks like a Gas MINI produces about twice the CO2 per mile... In the absolute worst case (For the electric version).
Thanks!
Parent
Re:Let's anticipate a common response (Score:4, Interesting)
You lose efficiency when you transfer the power into the batteries and back out again. If you do all the math, using a coal fired plant to power an electric car uses almost the same amount of chemical energy (it's about 26% efficient, 40% for the coal plant and 72% for the battery/motor, and 90% for the power inverter, while a conventional engine is around 20%) but generates more CO2. The 60% you cite is for a combined cycle natural gas plant, but that's not where we get most of our power.
Parent
funding (Score:5, Insightful)
State governments, especially California, just can't afford $1B projects. But the Feds sure can. Because they are trying to counter a deflationary spiral, they are printing money as fast as they can and giving it to banks.
Compared to what they've been giving away, $1B is nothing. They really should consider throwing some of that over to CA. [It will create JOBS and reduce foreign oil dependency, Mr. Obama!]
Re:funding (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the difference between states and the Feds is that the states require themselves to balance their budgets. The Feds are actually in worse overall financial shape debt-wise, but are much more liquid by virtue of the size of their credit cards.
Parent
Re:funding (Score:5, Informative)
California has an economy so large that if it were an independent nation, it would still have one of the top ten economies in the entire world. California actually has a larger economy than the entire nations of Canada or Russia. In other words, there's a lot of money in California, which means a lot of taxes being collected.
I'm not sure why you would say, "especially California," considering its economy is substantially larger than any other state in the union. Are you indicating that the state should spend its funds elsewhere? That we are suffering so much disproportionately more than anywhere else? I'm not sure.
Parent
Re:funding (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure why you would say, "especially California," considering its economy is substantially larger than any other state in the union.
California's current budget is something like $15 billion dollars in the red, so we really don't have an extra $1 billion laying around at the moment.
Parent
Something for the Buck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A bunch of banks packaged mortgage products together under a very elegant (and beautiful imho) design that nicely divvied up the risk and reward based on the unique, individual needs of various parties.
A troll too far, sir. You give yourself away!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a masters degree in business. What's yours in? The "sub-prime" problem is named that because it is an attempt to blame poor people. It was all old rich white men that used deregulation to hide bad investments. Bad loans were made by brokers. They were quickly sold off to smaller organizations who bundled them and sold them. The bundles were t
The Gold Coast (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong again (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lived and worked in the Bay Area. Pollution from cars is a problem. Cars are a problem.
Electric cars are not the answer. (I don't even want to imagine sitting in deadlocked traffic, heater or AC on, tunes playing, battery draining...)
Mass transit is the answer - not just BART - REAL mass transit. I cannot stress enough that if one travels to Japan and sees for oneself how fucking cool and efficient the Japanese mass rail system is - billion dollar proposals like this would die at conception.
Mass transit first - electric cars (if they're still needed, really) second.
Fuck me, America - can we try fixing problems instead of fixing symptoms - just once?!?!
Re:Wrong again - yes, you are. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mass transit is the answer - not just BART - REAL mass transit. I cannot stress enough that if one travels to Japan and sees for oneself how fucking cool and efficient the Japanese mass rail system is - billion dollar proposals like this would die at conception.
No. Sorry. Mass transit is part of the solution, but it is not the solution.
The problem lies in the inherent difference between mass transit and public transit and most people don't recognize the difference.
Mass transit focuses on getting mass number of people between various high density locations. These are your medium to heavy rail systems. For the Bay Area that's BART and CalTrain.
In places like Japan, where they have high population densities, it works great. There's a reason places like Tokyo, Moscow, New York, London, etc., can have fantastically efficient mass transit systems: they have the population density to deal with it.
Public transit on the other hand focuses on being a 'vehicle replacement' so people in lower density areas can actually give up their cars. This is taxies up through light rail. Fewer passengers, but more convenient and more versatile.
Bay Area geography doesn't really favor Mass Transit. It's why BART basically sucks for commuting. With the exception of MUNI linking well to BART, most of the Public to Mass links suck.
The whole electric car infrastructure is an expensive idea, and it talks to the whole "chicken and the egg" problem. Without infrastructure, electric cars are useless. Without electric cars, no one will build the infrastructure. This is actively solving the infrastructure problem ahead of the cars.
Is it a good idea? Ultimately, yes. Is it the right idea? That's a lot harder to say. A massive bay area wide fleet of on-demand bio-diesel fueled hybrid shuttle buses might be better. But who's to say? Cars are a part of US culture partially because of our geography. We live in suburbia, which is inherently tied in with car culture.
Unless your mass transit plan includes re-arranging US cities and how people live in this country, it will never be the solution.
Cheers,
Bagheera
Parent
Re:Wrong again (Score:5, Insightful)
People like private transport.
Because they don't know any other way?
I like private transport - a lot. I just think that it has its place, and that place is no where near 100%. From my time in Japan, I'd say it's less than 10%.
Because people do like going to the same places quite often - the music/bar district ('bout every town I've been in has had one), the university, the business district, the industrial areas, the shopping malls, the grocery stores. And with enough mass transit outlets, you can even get to Aunt Tillie's house pretty easily.
I rode the Metro in the DC area - and freaking hated it. It was like riding with all of the grey people of Trantor - everyone's personal space invaded because of the cattle-car approach to it all.
Mass transit doesn't have to be that way.
We might not like each other at first face-to-face. I'd rather ignore you sitting or standing next to you on a train than have you driving next to me in murderous traffic. (The you in that sentence is strictly rhetorical.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, if you are content to only go to destinations that CalTrain services, things are better than BART. Especially the old-but-slightly-bumpy gallery cars where those of us who wanted to engage in quiet intellectual pursuits like reading or sketching can do so upstairs without a person to rub shoulders with, life is good.
After losing 20 lbs and actually reaching a fairly good level of physical fitness for the first time in my nerdly life, I'm fairly convinced that it's not just about mass transit. It's ab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing to remember though, Japan is the 10th largest nation population-wise, jammed in an area smaller than California.
As of 2003, Tokyo alone had 32 million people shoved into 8,000 sq km, where New York New York had a paltry 20 million in a spacious 18,000 sq km.
Those sorts of living conditions resemble Asimov's "Caves of Steel" [wikipedia.org], which, if you remember, posited almost the exact cultural mores that the Japanese display today RE: privacy, conformity, and overcrowding.
I have a feeling that there is a bit
Re:Wrong again (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot stress enough that if one looks at Japan on a map and sees for oneself how fucking small the Japanese island is, and how close together its population centers are...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Tokyo_Area [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area [wikipedia.org]
I was discussing the Bay Area. You will note that it's size is comparable to the Tokyo area and has a lower population. I am not referring to the cross-country lines of Honshu island, I'm referring to the KEIO and JR lines.
What I propose most certainly DOES fucking scale - very, very well. So, yes - by all means - let's use the right tool for the job and implement proven solutions from similar circumstances.
Parent
Editor Fail (Score:5, Informative)
Recently San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland unveiled a massive concerted effort to become the electric vehicle capitol of the United States.
Capitol [reference.com] is a proper name, originally of a temple and the hill it sat on, but now often of a building that serves as the seat of a legislature. Capital [reference.com] means the city that serves as the seat of government. It also means the chief city of a region, and is the metaphorical sense intended here.
Even if submitter didn't know the difference, a professional editor should have. Good thing we don't have any of those around here, huh?
Saving the planet starts at home! (Score:3, Funny)
Vehicle standardization? (Score:5, Interesting)
110v...220v...different plugs...different acceptable recharge times.
Replacement batteries will require some sort of mechanical/robotic system to do it. Your grandmother is not going to wrestle a 100lb battery pack out of the car. And none of the elec cars I've seen have easily (no more than 5 mins) replaceable packs.
Finally, we have the apartment problem. If I live on the 4th floor, how do I ensure my car won't be unplugged overnight by some miscreant on the street.
All of these can be overcome. But spending billions to build out a grid for this without the standardization in place will fail.
I really, REALLY want this to succeed. But this effort may be premature.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"But spending billions to build out a grid for this without the standardization in place will fail."
What has to be standardized is the last 10 foot of cable. They are building the grid, that part that feeds that last ten feet.
Re:Vehicle standardization? (Score:5, Interesting)
put a rectenna in the base of the car, and charge by induction from underneath the pavement (pick a frequency that meat doesn't absorb very well). As an added bonus, if your electricity is cheap enough, you can design highways to deliver wireless power so the cars only need batteries with 30 miles or so of capacity.
Billing and activation based on transponder identification, of course.
Parent
Why not bikes, for (*&%@'s sake??? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bay Area would be perfect for bikes. They are far more energy-efficient than EVs (by like 2 orders of magnitude), the Bay Area is largely flat, it suffers from massive congestion (EVs don't even begin to address that), it doesn't get too warm, it doesn't rain much all summer long, the societal cost of maintaining the facilities to park a few million cars are devastating, a few of the people who live there could use some exercise...
I like bikes even in hilly, rainy country, but there they have some disadvantages. It's utterly absurd that somewhere as perfect as the Bay Area doesn't encourage cycling.
Re:Why not bikes, for (*&%@'s sake??? (Score:5, Insightful)
They require more time
Maybe. Over long distances of open highway during non-rush-hour, absolutely. Around town, false. In city, at distances under 5 miles or so, I'm usually faster than a car. Some of that is that a car might not be able to park very close to the destination...
require your wmployer have a place to change
Does your employer not provide a restroom?
require you don't need to carry much
Of course--but you should define "much". Panniers carry what I need most of the time, and some people use trailers for the really big stuff.
are more dangerous*
Completely [bicycleuniverse.info], absolutely [kenkifer.com] wrong. Or check the numbers yourself, but making claims that go against the evidence just makes you look like an idiot.
can't pick up very many people
Have you ever counted how many trips see no more than one person in the car? So use a car for the 10% of trips in which you need to pick up someone who doesn't have his own transportation. Would you like to drive and park on roads with 10% of the traffic that you see now?
can't get groceries
Bullshit. Where do you get these half-baked ideas? 95% of my grocery runs are by bike, to a store about 5 miles away. The only reason I tend to take longer than I do when driving is that I take a scenic route because biking is fun.
impracticable in an emergency
Can you be any more specific? Also, please take into account the fact that the more people bike instead of driving, the fewer emergencies there are.
require good health.
They also create it, in a bunch of ways, while cars destroy it both passively (no exercise) and actively (pollution, stress, accidents). How is this a problem? Also, as I noted, the Bay Area is largely flat, and therefore biking does not require especially good health after all.
Just how fat are you, anyway??
Parent
Bad Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
No fossil fuels involved? Uh, how about coal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because your car is powered by electricity doesn't mean the electricity was generated without the use of fossil fuels. Might I remind the greens that most electricity in the U.S. is (unfortunately) still produced by burning coal? The same coal combustion which causes acid rain?
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (but solar and tidal energy are as close as we'll get).
Re:Any bets for the first major blackout? (Score:4, Insightful)
Those were manufactured shortages thanks to the crooks at Enron, Duke Energy, and the sham Governor that was Gray Davis.
Parent
Re:Any bets for the first major blackout? (Score:5, Informative)
From some back-of-the-envelope calculations it seems that we already have enough power generation and electrical distribution in the Bay Area and in most places to charge Chevy Volt-like cars overnight on our existing 220V. It might be nice to charge faster than 8 hours, or at work as well as home, but I don't see this as a major technology adoption problem.
The grid and power stations are designed to deliver about 3KW average to each household during peak hours in the summer heat. A single 220 outlet typically can deliver 3KW continuously. A Chevy Volt will need no more than 20KW hours of juice to charge. The math works.
The grid is barley taxed during the night, so this is a match made in heaven. The build-out we really need is an interstate-HVDC grid to deliver renewable power across the country from wherever it's generated. This can't be done at the state level, and will require action by Obama.
Parent
Re:Any bets for the first major blackout? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they wouldnt have any profits anymore.
Much better to ask for free money. They'll probably get it too.
Parent
Re:Any bets for the first major blackout? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also interesting that this happened less than a year after deregulation. Doesn't disprove deregulation in theory, but 40 years of regulation worked great, deregulation worked less than a year, the utility companies are, as you said, crooks.
Deregulation is a nice theory though. Not quite as elegant as communism, but it's a nice idea.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you're still cranking out CO2. This is about EVs (Electric Vehicles).
Re:GO for it, (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Europe has higher fuel costs because they tax the fuel heavily to support mass transit and other things that make it so that people don't need to use their cars constantly. This rather changes what kind of car it
Re:the consumers just need to do their part (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:the consumers just need to do their part (Score:5, Insightful)
They had to pry those EVs out of the hands of their owners because they were leasing them at a tremendous loss. The EV-1 program was done for research and to gain experience. The company subsidized every single lessee to the tune of something like 50%. When it became clear that the EV1 would never develop enough demand to be profitable, GM wasn't willing to continue massively subsidizing these people and supporting a miniscule fleet of cars simply out of the goodness of their hearts.
Parent
Re:the consumers just need to do their part (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's add some more facts to this discussion.
You talk about GM refusing to sell, service, or support EV1s outside of the tiny corner where they were running their project. Yet you completely ignore why they did this. I can only surmise that you are either being disingenuous or, more likely, you simply don't know.
So allow me to inform you. The batteries in the EV1 were extremely sensitive to cold, which ruled out most of the US due to the phenomenon we call "winter". There were also concerns about how they would respond to humidity, which ruled out all of the remaining places which get humid. Take a map of the US, eliminate all of the places which ever get cold or humid, and what remains is essentially GM's approved EV1 area.
This alone should tell you that the EV1 was not ready for full-scale sales and production. But it goes a lot farther than this. The EV1's design wasn't up to the rigorous safety requirements that any production car must meet. As a research project this made a great deal of sense. As a production car, obviously this simply could not work.
GM spent a billion dollars on the EV1, and leased them for half of what they would have charged if they had been trying to make money at it. A production-ready car that was up to production safety standards probably would have cost at least another billion dollars to design and certify, so jack that price up even more.
Of course GM never intended to sell any EV1s. That's pretty well implied by "research project". It was intended to give them experience for building an eventual production model electric car. The experience it gave them was, alas, that a production model would be impractically expensive. The truth of this should be obvious given that no car maker has ever built such a thing in the decade since the EV1 project was cancelled. Perhaps GM is colossally stupid. Given how much money they've been losing that proposition is pretty reasonable. But are all of them so stupid that they won't build electric cars even though everybody wants to buy them? No, they are not. Nobody is building electric cars because technology and demand simply haven't met yet.
I have no idea why you're comparing the EV1 to the Insight and Prius. The Insight and Prius are hybrid cars. That is, they have a gasoline engine and a small set of batteries to augment it, as an efficiency measure. The EV1 was a fully electric car, which is an utterly different kind of machine altogether, one which simply was not (and is just barely getting there now) ready for prime time.
Parent
Re:the consumers just need to do their part (Score:4, Informative)
Except that GM's experiment with them showed that they could not be sold at anything remotely approaching a profit. Nothing to do with aftermarket parts, and pushing on with such an obvious boondoggle would not do anything for the public good. But believe what you like....
Parent
Re:the consumers just need to do their part (Score:4, Insightful)
For comparison: a used Prius goes for ~24K USD http://www.internetautoguide.com/usedcars/11-int/toyota/prius/index.html [internetautoguide.com]
a new prius goes for ~22K USD http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/ [toyota.com]
Now why would a used Prius sell for more than the new one? Because you can't find a new one to buy. They are always on back order. Really? No demand? Stick to engineering...
Parent
Re:Energy Crisis says what? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)