U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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)
 
Old 06-28-2013, 04:25 PM
 
939 posts, read 3,079,040 times
Reputation: 619

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangerdude_Charlie View Post
My biggest problem with electric cars is they are only able to go so far before needing a charge. Then it takes time to recharge the batteries. How is one able to drive long distances when you are traveling, especially cross country in the US? When I am traveling I like to go for at least 10 hours of driving time. End the subsidies on electric cars. If the market wants electric cars let it work. If not let people buy what they want. This is an important part of being an adult, making choices and learning about the choices you make and then ultimately living with those choices.

Charlie.
Those hurdles are being knocked down. Battery and charging technology is rapidly improving. In about 4 years we'll have a mid size sedan that'll cost about $30k with a 200+ mile driving range. Charging stations are being built all across America that will provide a full charge in about 30 mins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
well, a gas vehicle is only able to go so far before a fill up, and it takes 4 minutes to fill up a car. with Tesla's battery swap, it takes 93 seconds to "charge" a Tesla. Or, it takes 20 minutes to charge it. Take a leak, pick up a sandwich, and you're pretty close to fully charged.

End the subsidies on oil and gas and we can end them on electric cars. also, price in all the costs for oil into the actual purchase. so instead of paying taxes to fund the security in the straight of hormuz, add a gas tax that pays for our military presence there.

then we'll see what people would buy.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2013, 01:16 AM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,409 posts, read 39,775,898 times
Reputation: 23442
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
well, a gas vehicle is only able to go so far before a fill up, and it takes 4 minutes to fill up a car. with Tesla's battery swap, it takes 93 seconds to "charge" a Tesla. Or, it takes 20 minutes to charge it. Take a leak, pick up a sandwich, and you're pretty close to fully charged.

End the subsidies on oil and gas and we can end them on electric cars. also, price in all the costs for oil into the actual purchase. so instead of paying taxes to fund the security in the straight of hormuz, add a gas tax that pays for our military presence there.

then we'll see what people would buy.
GAS ick... I will stay with my Bio or veggie fuels diesels. I only have to stop once every 1200 miles or so to top off.

Been working fine that way for 37 yrs.

I helped build many electric cars in the 1970's. They didn't get quite the longevity of my oil-burner...

I can 'bump start' mine if I have a dead battery

I find using a CHEAP car for 37 yrs to be fairly GREEN.
YMMV
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 02:07 PM
 
9,819 posts, read 10,065,705 times
Reputation: 5256
Quote:
Originally Posted by EEtechs View Post
Now if they can create a battery that is the tank that you fill up with some non-toxic fluid that goes down as the battery is used up, and the battery cell tank can last at least 25 years, then I could see electric cars taking off. But until then, I think gas powered cars are going to be here a while, irrespective of how polluting they are.
Gasoline is too inexpensive at the present time so that EV's will never balance out on a true cost analysis. If you save 300 gallons per year @ $4 per gallon, that is only $1200 per year. Even without time value of money calculations that is $9600 over 8 years, which is the minimum difference of the price an EV over the equivalent gasoline car.

In Finland where gasoline is over $9 per gallon it starts to make sense. But the price of gasoline in Europe is mostly taxes. Taxes function as income, but indirectly they are also used to influence behavior to conform with government's expectation of what is important in their culture.

So long before "the oil begins to run out", the government of the USA will have to make a tax decision about getting closer to other developed nations. People will correctly point out that the government has artificially made gasoline more expensive, and shifted the economics towards electric cars.

My only comment is "Get used to the idea, because it will happen!" It won't be a giant government conspiracy, but the USA will not be able to maintain such an extreme position forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 08:21 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,386,062 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
Gasoline is too inexpensive at the present time so that EV's will never balance out on a true cost analysis. If you save 300 gallons per year @ $4 per gallon, that is only $1200 per year. Even without time value of money calculations that is $9600 over 8 years, which is the minimum difference of the price an EV over the equivalent gasoline car.

In Finland where gasoline is over $9 per gallon it starts to make sense. But the price of gasoline in Europe is mostly taxes. Taxes function as income, but indirectly they are also used to influence behavior to conform with government's expectation of what is important in their culture.

So long before "the oil begins to run out", the government of the USA will have to make a tax decision about getting closer to other developed nations. People will correctly point out that the government has artificially made gasoline more expensive, and shifted the economics towards electric cars.

My only comment is "Get used to the idea, because it will happen!" It won't be a giant government conspiracy, but the USA will not be able to maintain such an extreme position forever.
Since America has recoverable oil reserves of 218.9 billion barrels it'll be quite some time before we adopt the european mentality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_res..._United_States

Have we forgotten America is larger than all of europe combined and what works there doesn't work here?

http://goeurope.about.com/od/europea...arison-map.htm

Mox Nix, the cost is not the issue here, it's the pollution of electric vehicles (from the OP)

Quote:
This is the side of electric automobiles that many people fail to consider, the lifetime emissions of electric cars that include the manufacturing, driving and disposal of the vehicle.

Once all the above factors are figured in the electric automobile is worse than a gasoline powered car when it comes to lifetime CO2 pollution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 08:37 PM
 
39,284 posts, read 40,634,876 times
Reputation: 16108
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
End the subsidies on oil and gas and we can end them on electric cars.
Brady the fossil fuel industry would love this proposal becsue they don't depend on those subsidies to remain competitive. When you look at the subsidy per unit it comes out to fractions of a penny per gallon for gasoline and about 50 cents on the averge monthly electric bill. As far as coal goes most of that is for R&D anyway and it would have absolutely no affect on the industry at all if the subsidy was removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 09:25 PM
 
939 posts, read 3,079,040 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Brady the fossil fuel industry would love this proposal becsue they don't depend on those subsidies to remain competitive. When you look at the subsidy per unit it comes out to fractions of a penny per gallon for gasoline and about 50 cents on the averge monthly electric bill. As far as coal goes most of that is for R&D anyway and it would have absolutely no affect on the industry at all if the subsidy was removed.
I'm for it based on principle alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2013, 11:32 PM
 
39,284 posts, read 40,634,876 times
Reputation: 16108
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvillager View Post
I'm for it based on principle alone.
It's not just subsidies that prop up these industries but also mandates. Even with the subsidies electric from solar and wind is still far more expensive than fossil fuels. Because of the mandates power distributors have to utilize it so the producer can charge more for it, much more. If you want a truly even playing field you also need to remove the mandates.

The ethanol, solar and wind industries would collapse overnight if they had to compete head to head with fossil fuels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 06:00 AM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,436,022 times
Reputation: 3112
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Brady the fossil fuel industry would love this proposal becsue they don't depend on those subsidies to remain competitive. When you look at the subsidy per unit it comes out to fractions of a penny per gallon for gasoline and about 50 cents on the averge monthly electric bill. As far as coal goes most of that is for R&D anyway and it would have absolutely no affect on the industry at all if the subsidy was removed.
That's hillarious. The tax breaks the oil industry gets are enormous. The only reason we have military in the Mideast is our "oil interests" there. Load the last 20 years of military efforts on the cost of gasoline. If you load the documented costs of the health effects of coal burning onto the coal mining industry, the cost are huge. That before you require the coal industry to sequester their CO2.

Last edited by DCforever; 07-01-2013 at 06:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 06:29 AM
 
39,284 posts, read 40,634,876 times
Reputation: 16108
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
That's hillarious. The tax breaks the oil industry gets are enormous.
It's 5 billion or year give or take a few billion. These are for bad wells and while a company like Exxon may be able to absorb those cost the smaller drillers may not. Overall it comes out to fractions of a penny for a gallon. Is a fraction of a penny going to really hurt you at the pump?

Here's the numbers from EIA, dispute it with them:

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests...df/subsidy.pdf


Quote:
The only reason we have military in the Mideast is out "oil interests" there. Load the last 20 years of military efforts on the cost of gasoline.
That's debatable, we have 10 aircraft carriers at sea. Are you going to count the costs of the ones off Japan's coast in keeping those solar panel shipping lanes open? We're in Afghanistan, there isn't any oil there but my understanding is they have a wealth of rare earth elements. The Us military in particular the US Navy would be in the Middle East no matter what becsue it's major shipping lane with or without the oil going through it.

Quote:
If you load the documented costs of the health effects of coal burning onto the coal mining industry, the cost are huge. That before you require the coal industry to sequester their CO2.
Blah, blah, blah.... now you're going to list some figures on deaths the EPA published caused by coal but since I've already explained how those figures are compiled you should understand by now those numbers are speculative at best.

Lets look at what benefits coal does provide, it provides cheap electric for these cars. Not only is it domestic but you're also reducing local pollution. It provides cheap energy for AC, this is especially important for elderly and the sick st this time of the year. It directly provides heat for some people (although they have to be nuts) or the means to provide heat in the winter. It turns the lights on in hospitals, schools, our homes and everywhere else. It's used to make cement and steel which is the foundations for our entire society including the foundation for your home, the sidewalk you walk on, the bridges and roads you drive on, the airport your plane landed at, the airport itself, the school your children went too and on and on....

Without cheap energy none of these things are possible in a modern society, how is that going to effect the health, well being and high standard of living of this nation if we didn't have this cheap energy now and into the future? If Grandma can't afford to turn on her AC how many people is that going to kill?


--------edit----------

FYI, seems the solar industry has a very big problem developing. How bad this is won't be known for years.

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/bu...anted=all&_r=0


LOS ANGELES — The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 06:49 AM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,436,022 times
Reputation: 3112
Blah blah blah. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. The costs are well documented.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...sidies/274121/

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...idies-20100525

http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewco...xt%3Dtepper%22

Respiratory Effects
Premature death: according to a 2004 report by the Clean Air Task Force, fine particulates from power plants result in nearly 24,000 annual deaths, with 14 years lost on average for each death.[18]
Coal combustion contributes to smog through the release of oxides of nitrogen, which react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to produce ground-level ozone, the primary ingredient in smog. Air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) and fine particulate matter adversely affect lung development.[17]
Air pollution triggers attacks of asthma, which now affects more than 9% of all U.S. children, who are particularly susceptible to the development of pollution-related asthma attacks. There are now tens of thousands of hospital visits and asthma attacks each year.[17]
Coal pollutants also plays a role in the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a lung disease characterized by permanent narrowing of airways.[17]
Exposures to ozone and PM are also correlated with the development of and mortality from lung cancer, the leading cancer killer in both men and women.[17]

Cardiovascular Effects
Air pollution is known to negatively impact cardiovascular health. The mechanisms have not been definitively identified, but studies in both animals and humans suggest they are the same as those for respiratory disease: pulmonary inflammation and oxidative stress. Pollutants produced by coal combustion can lead to cardiovascular disease, such as artery blockages leading to heart attacks, and tissue death and heart damage due to oxygen deprivation. It is estimated that soot pollution from power plants contributes to 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year.[18]
Recent research suggests that nitrogen oxides and PM2.5, along with other pollutants, are associated with hospital admissions for potentially fatal cardiac rhythm disturbances. Cities with high NO 2 concentrations have death rates four times higher than those with low NO 2 concentrations, suggesting a potential correlation.[17]
There are also cardiovascular effects from long-term air pollution exposure. Exposure to chronic air pollution over many years increases cardiovascular mortality, a correlation that remains significant even while controlling for other risk factors like smoking. Conversely, long-term improvements in air pollution reduce mortality rates: reductions in PM2.5 concentration in 51 metropolitan areas, due to the Clean Air Act, were correlated with significant increases in life expectancy.[17]
A 2012 Journal of the American Medical Association article looked at 34 studies comparing the risk of suffering a heart attack at various levels of inhaling industrial and traffic-related air pollutants including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter. The researchers conclude that: "All the main air pollutants, with the exception of ozone, were significantly associated with a near-term increase in [heart attack] risk."


Nervous System Effects
According to the PSR report, the nervous system is also a target for coal pollution’s health effects, as the same mechanisms thought to mediate the effect of air pollutants on coronary arteries also apply to the arteries that nourish the brain. These include stimulation of the inflammatory response and oxidative stress, which can lead to stroke and other cerebral vascular disease.[17]
Several studies have shown a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and stroke. In Medicare patients, ambient levels of PM2.5 have been correlated with cerebrovascular disease, and PM10 with hospital admission for ischemic stroke, which accounts for eighty-seven percent of all strokes.[17]
Coal contains trace amounts of mercury that, when burned, enter the environment and can act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity. Coal-fired power plants are responsible for approximately one-third of all mercury emissions attributable to human activity. Researchers have estimated that between 300,000 and 630,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to impair performance on neurodevelopmental tests and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.[17]


Researchers from Harvard University’s School of Public Health found that pregnant women exposed to high levels of diesel particulates or mercury were twice as likely to have an autistic child compared with peers in low-pollution areas. The findings were published in a 2013 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, and is the largest U.S. study to examine the ties between air pollution and autism.[19]
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:

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 > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 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