Where I live, we have hydroelectric power. A large, govt funded wind farm ($1 billion) was built and touted as the bestest greenie higgamajig ever. Only one problem, whenever the wind picks up, the hydroelectric dams have to scale back their generators, thus wasting spilled water. Wind turbines take first priority over dams. All this wind farm did was create a solution for a problem that didn’t exist.
Hondas and Kawis and Zukis and Yammys...Oh my!
Then we just need Tesla to build a battery farm to store the excess in...although others have argued against the pollutants generated from the batteries. The rub either way is you generate pollution either in the generation of the power or in the storage of it. There's even another group I haven't seen pipe up here that argues that solar/wind are worse for the overall climate than fossil fuels. It's an interesting theory on energy loss and heat but way out on the fringe of things.Originally Posted by Broken Hand
Water/Wind/Solar and most renewables are nice but unable to be relied on 100% of the time. Storage for the other times becomes the issue. Fossil fuel energy generation and Nuclear power have the benefits of being capable or variable power generation. The technologies are emerging to make integration of various power generating techniques more feasible although we're still years away from municipal practicality as far as I know. Which in the end is the same with an electric vehicle. They're great for a lot of things but to expensive and impractical for most of us to use as our primary transportation. Hybrids are more efficient and practical at this point although their construction generates even more pollution and their longevity suspect. Instead of people foaming at the mouth to ban fossil fuels they should be working on ways to make them more efficient and not allow emerging technologies in those fields to be so readily suppressed.
Maybe the windmills can pump the water back up into the reservoir so you can have a perpetual power and water supply ?
Just curious, how many horses crashed and burned. How many single horse and buggy fatalities were there? I know we'll never know the truth but your sarcastic response is technically true.
eta. In fact, just this past weekend in my town, a dangerous and highly combustible automobile just sent a young girl on a helicopter ride to a hospital because it struck the horse drawn carriage. Which one is more dangerous?
No, not actually. https://medium.com/@kkchristy/no-evs...l-b050d4f87136
No, not coal, but where does our electricity come from?
And do you think the people who want to Save the world by going to elrvtric cars will look fondly on building more powerplants? How about building the electrical trsnsmisdion lines to distribute it? The greenies will NEVER allow that
All of the energy supplied by gasoline and diesel fuel will have to come from generating stations.
Unless of course each EV comes with a unicorn that can convert it's farts to electricity.
Dat be a Work In Progress (WIP). For the cow's sake, I hope they don't smoke.
For Fun:
I personally think Ford executives are smoking to much funny stuff....Some of the top brass in the buggy industry are suggesting that they will be out of business by 1919 as they are burning through way to much cash, internal combustion technology is the same for the entire auto industry and the competition will get worse for them...They have no dealer network and a lot of negatives at this point..Just because their stock is high priced does not guarantee success...There cars are nice, but the average person cannot afford one in most cases. I guess we wait and see what the future brings, but for now, me and mine will stick with a good old horse and buggy...My Tennessee Walker is fast enough to get me trouble!!....Ride safe
I drive a box truck 2 days a week (25,900 gvw) so I decided I'd try to get an idea about charging it if it was an EV. I drove around 5 hours and burned about 13 gal of diesel. As near as I can figure using a Current Tesla "Supercharger" it would take around 4.5 hr to charge . If they are gonna run class 8 trucks they will have to do a bit better than that.
.... mainly because it is so stupid. There are no good sources of energy. They ALL have issues and not one of us here has the answers.
1. Eventually oil, gas and coal will run out. I doubt its going to happen in the next century, or maybe 1000 years. But it will become increasingly difficult to obtain all three. We don't agree on when.
2. Obtaining and burning oil, gas and coal is not good for the environment. To deny this is stupid, ask most people who have lived near, or on top of, a well or mine. But exactly how bad is open to too much uninformed debate. We have got to figure out and come to some sort of agreement on this.
3. Alternative sources of energy also have issues: Batteries, nuclear generation of electricity, hydro-power, windmills, and even solar all have problems.
We need to start weighing the costs and benefits of each technology and do so with several timelines in mind. In the short run, say in the next 10 years, we are not going to stop using fossil fuels, and the new technologies are not ready, or may have too many unforeseen consequences, (like the burning battery hazard.)
I think we've got to stop being so emotional here. We do have to subsidize new technology and smart research and development into new technology. It can pay off in the long run. The government has subsidized new tech since nearly the dawn of the industrial age: NYS and the Erie Canal, the US government and the railroads thru the west. The TVA in the 1930s and rural electrification in the 1930-1970s. These were huge projects that simply were not built by private sector until government got involved because they were so risky. The Erie Canal was built only when NYS got involved in backing the bonds. Railroads were built because the Feds gave land and cash to the builders.
We have to admit though that there were and will continue to be failures and mistakes in this process. There were certainly casualties in the 19th Century as we over invested in rails. Maybe we ought to set up some thoughtful oversight and we ought to have a better process for selecting what we invest in, but we do need to make investments in future energy, and we need to do it now, even if the payoff isn't for a century, or more.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
