Jump to content

Why a measured transition to electric vehicles would benefit the US


Recommended Posts

Second, even if the EV transition were to move as rapidly as the most aggressive plans call for, it would not necessarily maximize benefits for the climate. The climate advantage of an EV relative to a car with an internal combustion engine over its life cycle depends not only on the fuels used to generate the electricity it runs on, but also on emissions created during manufacturing. An EV charged by West Virginia’s coal-heavy system today, for instance, would actually emit more greenhouse gases than a hybrid gasoline-electric car, according to a recent MIT study. The same study points out that because most EV batteries today are sourced from Asia, a lot of coal is likely to be burnt to make them.

 

This is what people that think we need to rush into electric don't seem to understand.  Now of course this will change over time and in the long run everything being electric will be cleaner, but rushing into it doesn't solve anything.  Not to mention it is just unrealistic.  We need to clean up making electricity on a large scale first.  Wind and solar should definitely  be part of the plan but I don't think they are the whole solution because of the limitations.  Cold fusion would be nice but we are no closer today the twenty years ago as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that article...politically, with an aggressive push to lectrics michigan and ohio voters are to become critical to any prez hopeful..the amount of unemployed people in both those states is going to be thousands if not hundreds of thousands as there skill set is no longer needed with lectrics....another aspect at play here as well is the cult has decided (duh) they will need juice generation on days enviro conditions are not conducive to supply there needs (no wind, clouds blocking sun, etc)..the cult seems to be leaning nuclear generation as there preferred go to...i would rather deal with an oil spill then a nuke melt down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tzach said:

...  Not to mention it is just unrealistic.  We need to clean up making electricity on a large scale first.  Wind and solar should definitely  be part of the plan but I don't think they are the whole solution because of the limitations.  Cold fusion would be nice but we are no closer today the twenty years ago as far as I know.

 

Building those masssive numbers of tiny turbines for wind or panels full of rare metals for solar etc. isn't exactly efficient or good for the environment either.  Plenty of perfectly good clean modern nuclear plants could have been built to prevent the ramp up in coal and gas usage but greentards opposed those.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stampede.Offroad said:

 

Building those masssive numbers of tiny turbines for wind or panels full of rare metals for solar etc. isn't exactly efficient or good for the environment either.  Plenty of perfectly good clean modern nuclear plants could have been built to prevent the ramp up in coal and gas usage but greentards opposed those.  

 

 

Because there's a certain segment of the public that is convinced that every nuclear plant on the planet is a Chernobyl waiting to happen 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

 

Because there's a certain segment of the public that is convinced that every nuclear plant on the planet is a Chernobyl waiting to happen 

 

Then again who wants to live next to nuke plant if you don't have to?

 

The thing is that nothing is ever static-there are going to be improvements to solar panels, wind mills and the like to help increase energy production of them. 

 

Getting oil out of the ground isn't exactly clean either (see fracking in the US) or helping supporting people that have a 15th century mentality isn't smart either.  

 

Over the next 20 years or so, there are going to be alot more improvements to batteries and electrification/generation then their will be with ICE, which are more or less at their peak right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Then again who wants to live next to nuke plant if you don't have to?

 

I live just outside of the 'danger zone' of Fermi II (it literally ends at the end of my street less than 1/4 mile away). Thought nothing of it when we move here. It actually kinda makes me chuckle when DTE sends the annual safety pamphlet every year. 

 

Also I know about the meltdown that Fermi I had that lead to its closure. Still doesn't bother me at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Stampede.Offroad said:

  Plenty of perfectly good clean modern nuclear plants could have been built to prevent the ramp up in coal and gas usage but greentards opposed those.  

 

I live in rural northern Michigan and get our power from an energy co-op.  They just published their "where your energy comes from" summary.  Surprisingly, to me, 42.5% comes from nuclear.  I had no idea it was that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Then again who wants to live next to nuke plant if you don't have to?

 

The thing is that nothing is ever static-there are going to be improvements to solar panels, wind mills and the like to help increase energy production of them. 

 

Getting oil out of the ground isn't exactly clean either (see fracking in the US) or helping supporting people that have a 15th century mentality isn't smart either.  

 

Over the next 20 years or so, there are going to be alot more improvements to batteries and electrification/generation then their will be with ICE, which are more or less at their peak right now. 

You really think so?  What about the valve train?   A Piezo (sp?)  changes spray pattern during the intake cycle how many times and we can't eliminate camshafts, etc.  To say nothing of what improved materials will do to continued ICE improvements.

 

I'm not saying electrics won't take over,  I guess I just agree with the point that started this thread.    At what pace? And  are we considering all the other factors.  

Example, tree comes down and wipes out a roof full of solar panels.  What is  the chain for disposal  and the cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in California last month when PG&E was doing scheduled blackouts due to the fire risk. As public service announcements municipalities were warning people to be sure they had enough non-perishable food and to charge up their phones and cars. Thought the last point was a little exclusive as gas pumps also won't work when the power goes off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

 

I live just outside of the 'danger zone' of Fermi II (it literally ends at the end of my street less than 1/4 mile away). Thought nothing of it when we move here. It actually kinda makes me chuckle when DTE sends the annual safety pamphlet every year. 

 

Also I know about the meltdown that Fermi I had that lead to its closure. Still doesn't bother me at all. 

Dammit, another rabbit hole. My hardening brain wants to think that decommissioning was becoming a major problem for old plants some time back, even to the point where operators were leaving them online to avoid dealing with the problem. Maybe I'm just making stuff up again, or at least confabulating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

You really think so?  What about the valve train?   A Piezo (sp?)  changes spray pattern during the intake cycle how many times and we can't eliminate camshafts, etc.  To say nothing of what improved materials will do to continued ICE improvements.

 

I'm not saying electrics won't take over,  I guess I just agree with the point that started this thread.    At what pace? And  are we considering all the other factors.  

Example, tree comes down and wipes out a roof full of solar panels.  What is  the chain for disposal  and the cost?

Solid points to consider...the main problem with solar is at best the photovoltaic cell is 23% efficient...but most are at 18-20%...of course if you ask the cult MIT has it solved with break thru announcement next week....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mybkvu said:

Dammit, another rabbit hole. My hardening brain wants to think that decommissioning was becoming a major problem for old plants some time back, even to the point where operators were leaving them online to avoid dealing with the problem. Maybe I'm just making stuff up again, or at least confabulating.

After the partial meltdown in 1966, Fermi 1 was restarted in 1970 and ran until 1972. It has been decommissioned since 1975 but only been partially dismantled. It's bounced back and forth between SAFESTOR and active dismantling since it was originally decommissioned because they found more radioactive material than originally thought inside. 

 

A third reactor on the site was was approved for construction and operation in 2015 but DTE says they have no plans to actually build it at the moment. 

 

I'm not going to deny there is some inherent danger to nuclear energy but I will say there's definitely a lot of hyperbole involved in some of the arguments against it fueled in part by the Soviets and their stupid poorly thought out science experiment that caused Chernobyl to explode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2019 at 1:32 PM, Bob Rosadini said:

You really think so?  What about the valve train?   A Piezo (sp?)  changes spray pattern during the intake cycle how many times and we can't eliminate camshafts, etc.  To say nothing of what improved materials will do to continued ICE improvements.

 

I'm not saying electrics won't take over,  I guess I just agree with the point that started this thread.    At what pace? And  are we considering all the other factors.  

Example, tree comes down and wipes out a roof full of solar panels.  What is  the chain for disposal  and the cost?


You might get some improvements that way, but the biggest issue is that BEVs offer so much more performance at a lower cost (simpler “engine” vs ICE) that apples to apples an Electric motor offers more performance then a ICE does. The problem is power density-batteries vs gasoline 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2019 at 12:50 PM, silvrsvt said:


You might get some improvements that way, but the biggest issue is that BEVs offer so much more performance at a lower cost (simpler “engine” vs ICE) that apples to apples an Electric motor offers more performance then a ICE does. The problem is power density-batteries vs gasoline 

It has been the case for a century, and I honestly don't see it changing for the next couple decades either.  The advantages of electric motors have been known for a very long time (before 'motor cars' replaced all the horses, there were more electrics), it's just that our batteries suck compared to the energy density of liquid fuels. 

 

While batteries have certainly improved in the last few decades, there are plenty of every day applications that our battery tech is not a reasonable replacement for ICE in the foreseeable future yet either.  The biggest polluters on the road, by far, are commercial, heavy duty, and/or long distance -- things today's batteries still aren't good enough for and no one has produced a viable sellable product for.

Edited by Stampede.Offroad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

Let the market decide.

How about let the market decide without the  taxpayer subsidizing electrics .  
 

Take away the incentives  that we  are paying for and just where would electric sales be?  As others  have pointed out, electrics are not new. 

 

Perhaps  we could go back to R. G. LeTourneau's concept for off road equipment where a diesel powered electric traction motors.  That provides the benefit of a simplified power train.  Admittedly, his concept survived for maybe 30 years or so but of late, starting with Cat who came out with the D7E dozer a few years ago, others are now coming out with diesel/electrics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

How about let the market decide without the  taxpayer subsidizing electrics .  
 

Take away the incentives  that we  are paying for and just where would electric sales be?  As others  have pointed out, electrics are not new. 

 

Well that should play itself out in less then 6 months- Tesla is just about to lose its tax break status. 

 

I believe other manufactures will drop the price approximately by the same tax credit they are getting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2019 at 7:48 PM, Bob Rosadini said:

How about let the market decide without the  taxpayer subsidizing electrics .  
 

Take away the incentives  that we  are paying for and just where would electric sales be?  As others  have pointed out, electrics are not new. 

 

Perhaps  we could go back to R. G. LeTourneau's concept for off road equipment where a diesel powered electric traction motors.  That provides the benefit of a simplified power train.  Admittedly, his concept survived for maybe 30 years or so but of late, starting with Cat who came out with the D7E dozer a few years ago, others are now coming out with diesel/electrics.

 

Even better!  LeTourneau was a genius, BTW.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...