Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]
I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.
Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.
Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.[/quote]
Same circular argument of opposition that says we can’t do X until we do Y, or because of Y, and Z.
Yes, thing are interelated. But relationships are not static; they change as we evolve.[/quote]Why do X when doing Y will have a much bigger effect on CO2 emission? Why waste tax $ on X when doing C is a much better long term solution? Just because you’re against X doesn’t
mean you’re for Y and Z? Is it really that hard to understand?Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]
I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.
Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.
Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.[/quote] and I never said think gasoline is clean. My objection is against front capitalism and not for gasoline. Again, pro EV camp seem to overlook the dirty coal.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.
In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]
The argument ignores one of the main benefits of EV: it centralizes power generation at the plant. It is much easier to replace a single CO2 plant (or install carbon scrubbers/storage on them) than it is to replace millions of cars.
It also ignores the efficiency of EVs. Electric motors are about 80% efficient, compared to about 20% for combustion engines. So even if EVs are burning CO2 at the plant, they’re burning a *lot* less of it.
The equation only improves with time as CO2 plants get replaced with renewables. Meanwhile, those combustion engines will just continue to spew CO2.[/quote]what does that having anything to do with the fact that the cleanliness of EV is heavily dependent on the cleanliness of the power source. IMHO, there’s no point pushing EV when if your goal is to reduce CO2, you should be pushing for elimination of coal.
BTW, the study disagree with you. That’s the whole point of the article that EV is dirtier that ICE today in Hong Kong and China. BTW, it takes a lot longer to replace working coal plant than you make it out to be. I’m not arguing that EV running solar is dirty. I’m simply stating that EV powered by dirty coal plant is worse than gasoline. So, if you’re serious about the imminent problem of CO2, we should concentrate more on replacing coal with natural gas, or nuclear, or solar or geothermal, instead of EV. Once we clean up the energy source, then I believe it’s a perfect time to push EV. I personally don’t believe we should push EV in area that is still powered by dirty coal. The study showed Hong Kong, a pretty wealthy nation, went for 53% coal powered to their goal of 50% coal powered by 2020. We’re talking about 3% reduction as a GOAL in 8 years. At this rate, I would be dead before Hong Kong completely get off coal as a power source.
BTW, I think you’re being a little disingenuous by saying EV are 80% efficient while ICE is 20%. Though those numbers are correct, EV does not generate its own power. It’s still dependent on an external source. What is the thermodynamic efficiency of a coal burning power plant? What about the energy loss through transmission line? Also, this article is talking about CO2 emission, not thermodynamic efficiency. Also, I hope you’re aware that turbo diesel are ~40% efficient? Does that mean a Turbo Diesel car is better for the environment than a gasoline powered car?
Just to give you some perspective, a coal power plant is 35-38% efficient, Natural Gas is 32-38% efficient, and nuclear is 38% efficient. Transmission line loses about 6% of the electricity. So even before putting the electricity in your BEV, we’re only looking at 30-35% efficiency. Then EV loses between 10-20% of that. So, we’re looking at 27-31% efficiency at best and 24-28% at worse. That doesn’t seem too different than the efficiency of an average ICE from several years ago. Gas Direct Injection Engine have an efficiency of 35%. Atkinson cycle engines in Hybrids gets about 10% more. Hydrogen Fuel is about 25% more efficient. So, if your goal is the highest thermodynamic efficiency, then GDI with Hydrogen would be the best choice. Definitely not BEV being powered by coal power plant.
ParticipantYou guys are also concentrating solely on cars. While completely ignoring planes, tractors, big rigs, busses, work trucks, etc. EV is not suitable for any of that. To truly solve this problem, we need to find the next fuel source that can completely replace oil and coal in all applications, not just cars. Unless you can prove to me that BEV can be applied to all of those usage, I would say it’s a stop gap solution. I want a real solution, not a stop gap solution. Especially when my tax $ is being spent to subsidize it.
Not to mention China is producing about 1/3 of the world pollution. Mainly because of their coal burning power plants. This is with their current growth of demand for electricity (their cars are still powered by gas). If they don’t drastically change their energy source but replace their gas powered car with EV, I can see the world’s total CO2 emission will be much worse than it is today without EV in China. This is why I’m pushing for a holistic and long term solution.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]AN as we know, things life are not holistic. We do things piece meal, one at a time, in a market, or policy approach.
Things are about momentum, gaining competitive advantage, image and optics, etc..
A city that is all electric auto will get world status. Research and development as well as corporate headquarters will follow. The end result will be more riches.
And Escoguy is right, quieter cars will result in rising real estate near thoroughfares.
We’ve seen this happen along rail lines already.[/quote]I care more about the actual CO2 emissions than optics. More people and more companies will give you China if you don’t start on a cleaner foundation to begin with. Thanks but no thanks.As I’ve stated, freeway noise is mostly from tires, not engine. Which is why we call it freeway hum. The hum is from tires hitting pavement. Funny thing is that both tires and asphalt are by product of oil. How much more expensive would it be to maintain our roads if cost of oil is $200/barrel or banning oil all together.
I’m fully aware of the problem, but I feel the government’s solution is not holistic and more about optics. Same goes for others who support reducing CO2 but then live 30 miles away from work in a mcmansion. It just doesn’t make sense to me. After all biking and walking is much greener than EV.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.
But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.
In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]
But you are not counting the 6 kWh of electricity and a gallon of water needed to refine a gallon of gasoline.
In the 1920’s it took energy from 1 barrel of oil to generate 100 barrels of oil.
Now that barrel yields 20 barrels, and for the tar sand, it is a 1:5 ratio.[/quote]are you trying to argue that coal is cleaner than gasoline?
Participant[quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.
But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.
In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. All of these subsidies have been around for a long time and it only get bigger. Now, people are complaining we need to add more for the next industry. 50 years from now, we will need to give even more to the next industry. When will it end? We don’t even have money to help our homeless. Why not start with that first. I don’t want to continue to feed this beast called crony capitalism. You say you’re against crony capitalism but you’re advocating to keep on feeding the beast.[/quote]we are kinda going around in circle.
I don’t mind not having any subsidies for new alternative energy sources at all.
but how do you achieve a level playing field when gas subsidies are valued at $2 per gallon. how do we remove these subsidies tomorrow?[/quote]I answered you a few post back. Just increase the CAFE value and you can achieve the same result without needing more subsidies. I’m sure if you increase it to 50mpg, you’d kill the gasoline industry very quickly.
Anyways, I think I’ll end our discussion with, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. We just have different views as to what’s urgent and important.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables
Pfund said, “All new energy industries — timber, coal, oil and gas, nuclear — have received substantial government support at a pivotal time in their early growth, creating millions of jobs and significant economic growth,” adding, “Subsidies for these ‘traditional’ energy sources were many, many times what we are spending today on renewables.”[/quote]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. All of these subsidies have been around for a long time and it only get bigger. Now, people are complaining we need to add more for the next industry. 50 years from now, we will need to give even more to the next industry. When will it end? We don’t even have money to help our homeless. Why not start with that first. I don’t want to continue to feed this beast called crony capitalism. You say you’re against crony capitalism but you’re advocating to keep on feeding the beast.Participant[quote=ocrenter]Your first paragraph is contradicted by your second paragraph. Again, who doesn’t love the banner of fighting crony capitalism? But under that exact banner, the end result is the status quo and solidifying of the established entrenched energy monopoly. You mentioned you want to roll back subsidies, I agree with you, but the billionaires have a bigger voice in government and they will make sure government will bend to their will. Why do you think congress agreed french fries and kitchup are vegetables?
I don’t want to stop drilling. I want enough market place support for nascent tech until they become self sustainable and they will bring the current energy monopolies to their knees.
Solar is a great example. Prices have come down just absolutely dramatically. Solar use to be President Carter’s pet project in the White House. Reagan ripped that thing out and ridiculed it. Now solar makes so much sense that even red blooded republicans are for solar energy. How did this happen? By not having any subsidies and allowing the electric companies to run the show while telling the public we are protecting them from crony capitalism?[/quote]
Not contradicting at all. Just because I don’t want government to spend more of our tax dollar on helping companies doesn’t mean I want your tax dollar to go fighting against billionaires. Why not let Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc do the fighting? Why does the government have to get involved? Especially when that money is coming from the middle class.
I’m not arguing for status quo at all. But you have to realize that there are many competing technology. I don’t want tax $ going directly into companies. If we want to support fledgling tech, give that money to universities. Once the tech mature in the academic environment, the professors and researcher can then partner up with private capital. We already have Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Bank, I don’t think we need another “Big…”. If you create “Big Solar” then that will impede the next tech advancement just as Big Oil as you say is impeding on the advancement of solar/BEV.
Funny you say that you want nascent tech to bring the energy monopolies to their knees. Why do we need to spend tax dollar to do that? Especially when I don’t believe our government will know which tech is the right nascent tech. I rather have the free market do that. As for breaking up monopolies, it’s pretty easy to do and government do it all the time. Think Ma Bell, Microsoft, and now even Google is under their microscope. As for Big Oil, all the government have to do is increase the CAFE and maybe the best tech win. No need to spend tax $ on companies like Solyndra. I rather have that $ go toward the poor and needy in our society, not to another rich Millionaire/Billionaire.
Solar price have came down because of the Chinese, not because of the government subsidies to companies like Solyndra. Again, you prove my point, I don’t think solar is the be all end all of energy. I was a lot more excited about Bloom Energy than solar before I got my solar. But because government poured a lot more subsidies into solar, it make it more affordable. If they pour the same amount of incentives into Bloom Energy and other Fuel Cell companies, I would have not gotten solar. I’m still excited about companies like Bloom Energy and probably will probably go Fuel Cell when they’re available. I have solar for a few years now and I’m fully aware of the advantage/disadvantage. I can’t go off grid unless I spend a lot more $. Last night, I went without power for over 8 hours. If I have Fuel Cell, I can be completely off the grid and wouldn’t have that problem.Participant[quote=ocrenter]I don’t think a quantity and time limited consumer centric incentive will recreate the Big Oil monster. And what is your proposal on how to fight people like the Koch brothers pledging and planning millions of dollars to fight alternative energy source?
Lithium mining will likely keep up with demand, if it doesn’t, then like you mentioned, market forces will work that out.[/quote]
Whether the subsidies size will be as big as the oil industry will remain to be seen. What I’ve seen in the past though is, once you’re on the government gravy train, you’ll get lobbyists to help you keep them coming.I don’t propose anything because I don’t want to fight the Koch brothers anymore than I want to fight any other billionaires. They have the right to use their money however they see fit. Just like I do. Just because you don’t agree with how they spend their money doesn’t deminish their right to their money. Same can be said about any other people, rich or poor. George Soros also pump millions into causes that I don’t care for. But it’s not my place to dictate how he use hois money.
Whether Lithium mining will keep up or not remain to be seen. Time will tell. But I don’t want my tax dollar going toward crony capitalism. I rather that money go toward the poor who really need help. Of course market forces will work itself out. So, why waste tax dollar trying to manipulate the market?
I’m pretty sure the tax subsidies that oil company uses to buy their equipments are the same tax subsidies that other companies like GE take advantage of as well. Not to mention small businesses as well. It’s just that those rigs are very expensive, so their subsidies are big. That’s the problem with government trying to manipulate market. There will be unintended side effects. Not to mention the the fail investments of companies like Solyndra. This is why I want to roll back subsidies not add more.
I like to pose some questions for you. How quickly do you want us to stop drilling? After we stop, what will replace jet fuel, diesels for heavy machinery, what will replace plastics, lubricants, and other products that we current depend on that is made from oil? Do you lump coal and natural gas in with the same group as oil as well?
Participant[quote=spdrun]
If you really hate oil, you should be encouraging fracking and have natural gas replace coal and also support Fuel Cell to use that natural gas to generate electricity.
No. We should encourage nuclear and have nuclear electricity replace coal. French have the right idea. Vive la France![/quote]
We should encourage both. I don’t want to be heated in my home by nuclear? Right now, the most efficient fuel source for heating a home and water is either coal or natural gas. The technology is already there. If we just frack a lot more, encourage China and India to switch from dirty coal to natural gas and you’d greatly reduce CO2. We also have an abundant supply of natural gas as well, so if we increase frack, we’ll get an economic boom as we sell it to China/India and the rest of the world.Participant[quote=spdrun]Large engines aren’t necessarily much less efficient anymore.[/quote]
Especially when large V8 can shut down 4 of its cylinder when cruising. -
AuthorPosts
