Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna
Non polluting? Do you have ANY idea how electricity is generated?
|
Your sarcasm is misplaced. This isn't our first rodeo, and you're a late arrival to this one. In fact we've already challenged your misinformation, rebutted your arguments, answered all your questions and more in previous threads, before you were even a member here.
But to start this remedial review on the right keel, I'll repeat my original statement, which is absolutely and undeniably true... Electric vehicles are inherently clean and do not create air pollution... not even the ones that are powered by onboard hydrogen fuel cells. Charge them from non-polluting, renewable energy sources and the cycle will be completely clean.
Quote:
Most electricity is generated by burning coal.
|
To be accurate, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that 39% of our electricity was generated by coal fired plants last year.
Quote:
Now when the coal is mined there's quite a dirty mess to clean up--but that's how we get most of our electricity. (Well, 39% anyway) Also, as the coal is burned it produces Carbon Dioxide--perhaps you have heard about CO2, greenhouse gasses, ect. (sic) But that's how we get most of our electricity. (Well, 39% anyway)
|
Yes, and it's unfortunate that we can't just wave a wand and replace all fossil fuel burning plants with renewable energy sources overnight, but we can't. But even so, charging up EVs from a distant coal-burning power plant is still a large net gain in air pollution over using gasoline or diesel fuel in ICE (internal combustion engine) powered vehicles. One obvious area of gain is that a single large exhaust pipe is far easier to scrub and control and monitor than tens of thousands of small ones.
So the amount of CO2 produced per mile driven is far less with an EV, and currently also costs only about half as much as buying gas. And we expect that whatever amount of CO2 is currently being produced by fossil fuel generation can be reduced even further with the latest CO2 sequestration (capture & storage) technology being piloted at the new coal burning Boundary Dam Project in Saskatchewan, Canada. The expectation is that 90% of the CO2 produced by the plant will be captured, compressed, and pumped deep into the earth for permanent storage. I think that will help buy us a little time, and if the technology works as planned, it can probably be retrofitted to some existing plants.
Quote:
Many plants do not burn coal; they burn natural gas. Natural gas is produced by fracking. Perhaps you have heard about that. But that is the main alternative to coal. Burning natural gas also produces CO2.
|
Yep. Natural gas generation of electricity is 27% of the US total, according to the EIA. It has been looked at as a great transitional fuel to help us get us weaned off coal while we ramp up the renewable resources, because it is cleaner and gives off less CO2 in use than coal or oil do. Unfortunately we're now discovering that fracking for natural gas has some unintended consequences, such as the hundreds of earthquakes now hitting Oklahoma in rapid succession. So it isn't quite the heroic savior it was once thought to be, and the market prices have proven to be quite volatile.
Quote:
The third most common way to produce electricity is to boil the water with the heat given off by nuclear reactions. You have no doubt heard about radioactive waste.
|
Yuppers, why hecky darn, I shorely do, Mister. Yup, yup, yup. Matter of fact, one of my close personal friends, a college professor and published author, is one of the leading experts in the world on dealing with nuclear waste. So maybe it's time you just dropped the arrogant conceit that you know better than any else here.
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster I have serious doubts we'll see any new reactor plants built in this country. I think getting all the permits and going through the review and approval process is too much of an uphill climb now. Just my opinion. Guess we better get cracking and develop our renewable energy resources, huh?.
Quote:
These three methods generate 90% of the electricity we use.
|
Well, it's actually 85%, but apparently accuracy isn't important to you.
Quote:
Most of the rest is generated by having falling water turn the turbine.
|
7% is hydropower, yes, and it's clean and cheap to produce. No CO2 being generated here. But due to wildlife and environmental concerns I don't see any new dams or hydro plants being built in the US, and we've even seen a push to decommission and remove existing dams in several places.
Quote:
Wind and solar are fickle and unreliable and all such Alternative Energy only accounts for 3% of all the electricity we use
|
Actually, the EIA says it was up to 6% last year, with over 4% produced from wind energy alone. This year it will be higher. And next year even more so.
Quote:
Environmentalists are complaining about about unsightly wind farms and solar farms and how these also harm the Environment. We cannot produce electricity without somehow destroying the Environment.
|
The "environmentalist" people working to reduce CO2 pollution are not the same "environmentalist" people who oppose wind farms and solar farms and apparently anything that changes anything. But the ones working to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere ultimately must win the debate, or otherwise we're cooked as a species. And soon, please!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna
You realize that batteries wear out after a few years and then they are toxic waste that is quite expenssive (sic) to dispose of, don't you?
|
Tesla's battery warranty is already 8 years, and emerging battery technology can be expected to push the envelope on that. And if you look at the plans for Tesla's new Giga battery factory you'll see that battery recycling is built into the process.
Quote:
Wind turbines kill birds--or haven't you heard about that?
|
So do buildings which are absolutely motionless, or haven't you heard about that? The US Fish & Game Service says that buildings cause over a billion bird deaths a year. They're by far the largest cause of bird deaths we know of.
Quote:
And anybody with an ounce of sense realizes that wind is a fickle thing that sometimes blows and sometimes doesn't and it may be 5 miles and hour one day and 50 miles an hour the next. Surely you realize these will generate vastly differing amounts of electricity, do you not?
|
But anyone who studies the facts knows that wind power makes a good complement to solar power because wind is often strongest at night, when solar power is not producing, so they tend to balance each other. Yes, technically we still need the conventional plants to even out the bumps and fill in the gaps, but workable power storage solutions could eliminate those, and storage technology is a hot area for current R&D.
Quote:
Have you not heard that wind farms are banned from many otherwise suitable locations because people find them so unsightly? The Kennedys, for instance, banned a windfarm near Martha's Vineyard because it would ruin a view they enjoyed.
|
Ripping the tops off mountains to extract coal is unisghtly too, as are the oil derricks and flares and settling ponds and pipelines associated with oil and gas production, and disposing of pet-coke and coal ash are problematic, and oil spills have horrendous effects, so ultimately the question is should our national energy policy be set by wealthy people who don't want the view out their windows to change just to produce clean electricity, and who are probably earning money on fossil fuel investments anyway?
Quote:
Solar farms block sunlight from reaching green plants and so lessen their ability to scrub CO2 from the air.
|
But co-cropping with solar banks is emerging as a surprisingly viable agricultural strategy, as it turn out that a lot of light bounces around under the PV panels or reflector panels, allowing all kinds of useful crops to grow. Wind turbines have always co-existed well with ranching. And new wind turbine designs are emerging that are less visually intrusive, quieter, and more wildlife friendly than in the past. You can't keep judging alternative energy by how it was 20 years ago. There have been a lot of technological advances recently.
Quote:
I'm actually quite a fan of Alternative Energy, but anybody who thinks there aren't some drawbacks--serious ones--has only heard about the candy and ice cream and not the tummy ache that follows.
|
The biggest drawback I see is that we can't seem to deploy them fast enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna
I was a big fan of electric cars back in the 60s and 70s--but they have a LOT of problems. The electric car has changed little from what it was in the 60s and 70s.
|
Stop, think... what was your radio like back in the 60s and 70s? How about your phone? And how about now?
Yep, the astonishing evolution of personal electronics since then is paralleled by the evolution of today's computer controlled Electric Vehicles. You can't be judging them by how it was 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Or even 5.
As Matthew Inman, cartoonist for The Oatmeal puts it, driving a Tesla S is like driving a rocket ship. Or to be perfectly accurate, he calls his Tesla an "Intergalactic SpaceBoat of Light and Wonder" in his entertaining and somewhat NSFW look at the car that Consumer's Union called the best automobile they have ever tested.
What it's like to own a Tesla Model S - A cartoonist's review of his magical space car - The Oatmeal