It will cost 25 M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to covert gasoline stations in CA to charge cars. As much as 20K homes. Will need to build new
power stations. Of course where the coal come from?
FuManChu wrote:
It will cost 25 M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to covert gasoline stations in CA to charge cars. As much as 20K homes. Will need to build new
power stations. Of course where the coal come from?
Everyone likes to think that electric is the clean thing. That electricity has to come from somewhere. Coal, fossel. Oil, fossel. Methane, fossel. Hydro damns, don't harm the fish an no new big dams. Windmills, ugly to some, don't kill the bats to others(really? Ever try to knock a bat out of the air?). Solar, there is a lot of expense in producing solar cells and batteries or the big solar furnaces.
If we want to keep our comfy powered lifestyle, it's gonna cost. The sad thing is, it will probably be our kids or grandkids that are going to pay the real tab.
I've been on this planet for 66 years and I have seen a difference a lot of differences. Some not so good. I've also seen a lot of improvements. Globe warming does worry me. The Little Ice Age of a few hundred years ago worried a lot of people then. I do get tired of the rest of the country following California'$ lead, ju$t becau$e.
Ramblings of a Senior Citizan.
Glad you don't disagree that climate change is real. That is the first step at remediation. I own a plug-in hybrid and average almost 100 miles per gallon of case. The electricity I use, produced by natural gas burning generators, costs me roughly the equivalent of $0.64 per gallon. California is the leader because of their poor air quality prior to stressing the issue of clean air. I remember landing at Lax 25 years ago or so and not seeing the top of the tower there. That is now easily visible. No one, we'll maybe one man, wants us to revert to burning coal! We know how bad that is for our environment in so many ways!
There are many safeguards in place for coal burning so "it ain't what it was" in the past. Sure there are cleaner ways to cut the carbon footprint. But let's face it there is a cost to everything. I don't want to pay 50% more energy charge for everything in my life, just as I don't want over polluted air. It's all about the balance.
FuManChu wrote:
It will cost 25 M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to covert gasoline stations in CA to charge cars. As much as 20K homes. Will need to build new
power stations. Of course where the coal come from?
Almost all electric vehicle (EV) owners charge their cars at their home, generally overnight so there's no need to convert gas stations to electric stations. The average New Hampshire resident drives 32 miles per day so an EV can run "all day" and still make it home to recharge. There are already hundreds of fast charging stations across the U.S. and EV owners who want to travel long distances can find them using any number of apps or web sites. The only problem with charging an EV on the road, is that it can take up to half an hour to charge the battery although there are emerging technologies that may reduce charging time to 5 minutes or less.
Yes, the electricity has to come from somewhere and grid electricity is a mix of coal, oil, gas, wind, hydro and solar...the percentage of them changes depending on the location and in New England I think coal power represents something like 12% of the electricity we draw. And don't forget power stations have far more emissions control technologies than the average car. It's still cleaner to use coal generated electricity in a car than to burn the equivalent gasoline.
Where did you get the idea that if the remaining coal-fired plants all closed at once, that the cost of electrical power would rise 50%?
The statistics suggest that the use of coal in generating electricity is the largest producer of CO2 and the biggest pollution source in the US. This has led to a very slight increase in average temperatures in the US but dramatic increases in illnesses related to change in climate, allergies, asthma, type of insects, etc. Between the fires in CA and the hurricanes in the south, our food security is at risk. The effect of climate change on the swing in the temperature, an severity of storms and drought is something that can not be argued against scientifically!
toxdoc42 wrote:
Glad you don't disagree that climate change is real. That is the first step at remediation. I own a plug-in hybrid and average almost 100 miles per gallon of case. The electricity I use, produced by natural gas burning generators, costs me roughly the equivalent of $0.64 per gallon. California is the leader because of their poor air quality prior to stressing the issue of clean air. I remember landing at Lax 25 years ago or so and not seeing the top of the tower there. That is now easily visible. No one, we'll maybe one man, wants us to revert to burning coal! We know how bad that is for our environment in so many ways!
Glad you don't disagree that climate change is rea... (
show quote)
Climate change has been with us since the beginning of time, and nothing we do is going to change that--nothing.
The worst hot air about climate change is coming from the mouths of politicians.
The climate change experts use data to prove that the earth's climate is changing. In cases of data, there must be a "normal" period use as a measure of what the "normal" temperature is. Can anyone here tell me the exact year the earth was "normal"? I'd love to know.
... It's still cleaner to use coal generated electricity in a car than to burn the equivalent gasoline.[/quote]
I doubt that. It would be interesting to see some comprehensive impartial comparisons.
While this argument can go on forever, and both sides can get proponents and have good points perhaps there is a way to cut the overall pollution and still have our way of life, smaller cars burn less gas, smaller TV's burn less electric, less F****** airplanes , even less golf courses, (big eco damage there), more efficient heat and cooling for our homes, I bet we could come up with more if we tried, Bob.
BTW we have downsized our cars several times over the last few purchases, and we make a car last about 10 years on average.
FuManChu wrote:
It will cost 25 M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to covert gasoline stations in CA to charge cars. As much as 20K homes. Will need to build new
power stations. Of course where the coal come from?
Hydrogen will make electric cars obsolete as quick as LEDs made florescent bulbs obsolete. Unless they can recharge fully in 5 min. real Americans will not put up with hours to fill the car up.
Nalu
Loc: Southern Arizona
The proposal by California to go 100% electric new vehicles by 2040 simply represents another example of the ego centric attitude of California politicians. Even the politicians agree that the California Climate change program will do nothing to impact a changing climate. They say they want to lead by example to the rest of the world. At whose expense?, the public. Everything they do eventually impacts your wallet and does nothing to impact climate change, assuming the climate is changing and it anthropogenically caused. Eventually, the cost of living in California will get so high no one will be able to afford to live there. And get this. California politicians feeling that anyone making over $75,000 annually is wealthy. And don't get me going about the environmental impact of solar fields and wind turbines farms. Their footprints are huge compared to conventional generating stations. My wife keeps telling me its time to get out of California as thousands and thousands already have. But don't get me wrong, its a great place to live. Its just the Sacramento crowd has lost it when it comes to being practical.
wideangle wrote:
The climate change experts use data to prove that the earth's climate is changing. In cases of data, there must be a "normal" period use as a measure of what the "normal" temperature is. Can anyone here tell me the exact year the earth was "normal"? I'd love to know.
When you find out what year was "normal", please let me know. I'd love to learn the answer to that question also.
bobmcculloch wrote:
While this argument can go on forever, and both sides can get proponents and have good points perhaps there is a way to cut the overall pollution and still have our way of life, smaller cars burn less gas, smaller TV's burn less electric, less F****** airplanes , even less golf courses, (big eco damage there), more efficient heat and cooling for our homes, I bet we could come up with more if we tried, Bob.
BTW we have downsized our cars several times over the last few purchases, and we make a car last about 10 years on average.
While this argument can go on forever, and both si... (
show quote)
A hydrogen car is an electric car with a very small battery and a requirement to buy hydrogen for recharging. While promoters stress that hydrogen could be obtained from water using electricity generated by a renewable source, that is not happening. Since almost all hydrogen fuel is derived from natural gas, the resulting pollution of a hydrogen car is very similar to that of a gas car. The fuel cost per mile is very similar to that of a gas car. Ongoing service needs are very similar to that of a gas car. Purchase price is higher than a comparable gas car. An electric drive train allows the driver to choose the energy source. I choose solar collectors on my garage. It's the same as my vegetable garden. A bonus of both is reduced monthly expenses.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.