U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2016, 04:56 AM
 
955 posts, read 514,525 times
Reputation: 2099

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
That all depends on the power source. In Colorado we are still fairly coal dependent. The upside is that the coal plants aren't in the metro area and don't contribute to smog in Denver as much as a gas burning car does.

You do make a very valid point though. We need to start switching our energy production to less polluting sources. Solar, wind, and even nuclear (gasp!).
Can we skip over solar and wind and just go to nuclear? It provides the most energy most easily, is much better for the atmosphere and is damn safe despite what hippies might have you believe and provides mining jobs here in the western USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2016, 05:52 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,795 posts, read 4,896,352 times
Reputation: 17136
Quote:
Originally Posted by history nerd View Post
Can we skip over solar and wind and just go to nuclear? It provides the most energy most easily, is much better for the atmosphere and is damn safe despite what hippies might have you believe and provides mining jobs here in the western USA.
The problem with Nuclear is the toxic waste both in processing Uranium and dealing forever with used up fuel pods.

If you have to guard the toxic waste forever, Nuclear power just makes future generations pay for present consumption.

Furthermore, after the experiences of Fukushima and Chernobyl, a new Nuclear plant is a non starter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2016, 06:18 AM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,401 posts, read 39,713,740 times
Reputation: 23426
Nuclear will never fly again in CO after they axed ST. Vrain.

Too bad,,,, I have been enjoying the Nukes positioned in Europe cities to give great benefit to heating house, as well as making power. Nothing to worry about because Europe has such a history of peaceful neighbors...

This is my first trip back sine EU.... Very ez to cross borders now, I haven't used my passport for months.

I'll stick with cooking oil, and am holding out for airlines to perfect algae fuel.
So far, so good, just delayed a few yrs due to artificial oil price declines. And politics.
For my industry, HHV is far more cost and energy effective tham HEV.

There is nothing sustainable about electric cars, but they will substitute for some urban / suburban dwellers.

When the public transportation / package delivery industry goes 100% hybrid or full electric, prices and technology will benefit consumers.

When government gets involved with rebates, it kills the rational development, and the sharks feed on Joe consumer. Note solar tax credits.... The sharks disappeared from Jimmy Carter era until end of Clinton era... Then the same 'solar' sharks reappeared in Colorado. Older and wiser. ( and in bed with politics)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2016, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
6,904 posts, read 6,496,831 times
Reputation: 7353
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
Nuclear will never fly again in CO after they axed ST. Vrain.

Too bad,,,, I have been enjoying the Nukes positioned in Europe cities to give great benefit to heating house, as well as making power. Nothing to worry about because Europe has such a history of peaceful neighbors...

This is my first trip back sine EU.... Very ez to cross borders now, I haven't used my passport for months.

I'll stick with cooking oil, and am holding out for airlines to perfect algae fuel.
So far, so good, just delayed a few yrs due to artificial oil price declines. And politics.
For my industry, HHV is far more cost and energy effective tham HEV.

There is nothing sustainable about electric cars, but they will substitute for some urban / suburban dwellers.

When the public transportation / package delivery industry goes 100% hybrid or full electric, prices and technology will benefit consumers.

When government gets involved with rebates, it kills the rational development, and the sharks feed on Joe consumer. Note solar tax credits.... The sharks disappeared from Jimmy Carter era until end of Clinton era... Then the same 'solar' sharks reappeared in Colorado. Older and wiser. ( and in bed with politics)
I have to take issue with a bunch of this. First, define "artificial oil price declines". The declines have been market driven. Increases in technology (fracking) have allowed an increase in supply. As prices have dropped, some of the fracking sites have gone offline, but the Iranians and Saudis realized that if they cut production and prices go up too high, the fracking wells will gear right back up. The cost associated with bringing a new fracking site up or restarting an old site are minuscule compared to what the costs of bringing a new well online 20 years ago were. I have a hard time calling any of this "artificial".

Second, the oil companies continue to receive tax breaks. They are the ultimate "sharks" paying to craft legislation that favors their industry. You can't call out solar tax credits until all oil tax credits disappear without appearing to be incredibly hypocritical. The credits the oil companies get go directly to the companies instead of to the consumers like the electric car and solar credits do. I would argue that these are less transparent and therefore a more egregious violation of the public trust.

As far as there being nothing sustainable about electric cars, I also question this statement. How are they any less sustainable than any other car on the road?

Regarding nukes. Never say never. The movement towards nuclear power was dealt a major setback after the Japanese earthquakes, but I firmly believe that if we are to address climate change in the near term, it needs to be a big part of the conversation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2016, 10:29 AM
 
918 posts, read 983,677 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision67 View Post
The problem with Nuclear is the toxic waste both in processing Uranium and dealing forever with used up fuel pods.

If you have to guard the toxic waste forever, Nuclear power just makes future generations pay for present consumption.

Furthermore, after the experiences of Fukushima and Chernobyl, a new Nuclear plant is a non starter.
There's 5 of them U/C in the US right now. 5 units which will increase the overall US nuclear generating capacity despite the shut-downs because they're 1000MW units replacing <500MW units.

China is building 26 reactors and has another 176 planned.

The only place that is weaning itself off nuclear power is Germany and they're busy killing thousands because those nuclear plants have been replaced by coal-fired generation as the Energiewende project hasn't born the gains in renewable as quickly as promised. But at least the windmills look pretty right now despite the fact that the total lack of energy storage solutions is preventing them from providing baseline power- which is the Achille's heel in a renewable energy portfolio that still needs to be addressed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2016, 10:33 AM
 
918 posts, read 983,677 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hschlick84 View Post
I'd rather drive this, better range than the leaf and not dependent on coal.

2017 Honda Clarity
A fuel cell stores energy that's been produced elsewhere like a battery. If the facility that produces the hydrogen is powered by coal, then your fuel cell is still coal dependent. Just like a battery.

Generation source is the key to reducing carbon emissions- address that, add increased efficiency, and you're most of the way to a massive reduction in carbon emissions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2016, 01:17 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,401 posts, read 39,713,740 times
Reputation: 23426
No 'new cars' requiring energy & new materials to manufacture, is very sustainable. Electrics are far worse for recycle ratios, than previous technologies of the 1970's.
Too much plastic and caustic electronics and batteries / end-of-life 'downcycle' costs.

If you drive a 40 yr old electric car, it is fairly sustainable, except for battery recycling and manufacturing. Older batteries are actually much easier to recycle (less energy required to recondition.)

One of my tractors is 70 yrs old. I use it a lot, that is very sustainable. My daily driver is 39 yrs old. It costs about $8 in parts per yr to keep it running healthy. No new energy or materials req.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2016, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
6,904 posts, read 6,496,831 times
Reputation: 7353
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
No 'new cars' requiring energy & new materials to manufacture, is very sustainable. Electrics are far worse for recycle ratios, than previous technologies of the 1970's.
Too much plastic and caustic electronics and batteries / end-of-life 'downcycle' costs.

If you drive a 40 yr old electric car, it is fairly sustainable, except for battery recycling and manufacturing. Older batteries are actually much easier to recycle (less energy required to recondition.)

One of my tractors is 70 yrs old. I use it a lot, that is very sustainable. My daily driver is 39 yrs old. It costs about $8 in parts per yr to keep it running healthy. No new energy or materials req.
I'll assume you are good with my take on oil prices.

As for vehicle longevity, the average car lasts about 200,000 miles nowadays. The average vehicle is driven about 15,000 miles a year. That means cars last about 13-14 years. The economic and cultural impacts of more than tripling that number are fascinating to me. It would be crushing to the automobile industry.

What will be really interesting to see is if the transportation industry shifts to a sharing economy where fewer and fewer people see benefits in owning cars. This will greatly increase efficiency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:16 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top