|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Nov 2, 2008 11:02:40 GMT
nautonnier writes "Considered as a whole from energy production to use, they actually use MORE energy LESS efficiently - Why are electric cars seen as so green? " You must not forget that there are several things going on at the same time. For Uncle Sam, there is the problem of being dependent on Arab oil. Electricity in North America is not produced by oil, but by indigenous fuels. That is why electric cars are attractive; nothing to do with AGW. Ethanol is the same; an indigenous fuel to North America.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2008 17:16:36 GMT
nautonnier writes "Considered as a whole from energy production to use, they actually use MORE energy LESS efficiently - Why are electric cars seen as so green? " You must not forget that there are several things going on at the same time. For Uncle Sam, there is the problem of being dependent on Arab oil. Electricity in North America is not produced by oil, but by indigenous fuels. That is why electric cars are attractive; nothing to do with AGW. Ethanol is the same; an indigenous fuel to North America. There is not enough lead or lithium for the batteries anyway and I would think that will lead to an Organization of Heavy Metal Exporting Countries which will be just as unfriendly. |
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Nov 2, 2008 17:55:38 GMT
Don't worry--when the greenies figure out how nasty depleted batteries are to deal with, they'll want to tax that back to the Stone Age as well.
It's a Perfect Storm coming and that's all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 19:56:23 GMT
Tax and Tax Cut (Bribe): A (Rubber) Chicken in Every PotIn The Politics of “AGW”: reply #1 on Oct 28, 2008, I wrote: “The Democrat Candidate will have no problem keeping his pledge not to raise Income Taxes. Trillions of dollars will come in through Turnover Taxes, lots of wealth to share.” Here is the support: Democrats Call Largest Tax Increase -- A ‘Big Tax Cut!’ Author: Marc Morano Quoted: “The Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill has been called many things, but this appears to be the first time it has been called a “huge tax cut.” The reference to the bill as a “big tax cut” was made by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), despite the bill’s being considered the largest tax increase in American history. “The biggest pieces of this bill, is funds for the American people, a big tax cut. If my [colleague] opposes a tax cut, he ought to say it. It is a huge tax cut for the American people,” Boxer said on the Senate floor on June 3. Boxer also said on Monday, “This bill has one of the largest tax cuts in it that we've seen around this place in a very long time.” Website Title: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page Date: June 3, 2008 URL: epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=509dea32-802a-23ad-42ef-729d220328a8&IsPrint=True accessed: Sunday, November 02, 2008 And for a little light reading, too late for Halloween  , see The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change LegislationAuthors: WILLIAM W. BEACH, DAVID W. KREUTZER, PH.D, BEN LIEBERMAN, NICOLAS D. LORIS Download URL: www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/cda_0802.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 2, 2008 21:05:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 21:33:43 GMT
Tax and Tax Cut (Bribe): Piling It On For Great Depression IIPolitical ClimateAuthor: Robert J Samuelson, George F. Will Quotes: " Boxer Claims Recession is Best Time to Raise Energy Costs (6/3/08) 'recession is the precise time' to enact the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill because it 'brings us hope.' (Just Call It ‘Cap-and-Tax’ (6/2/08)) "The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade—a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases—is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. - "Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it’s not described as a tax.
- "It would regulate economic activity, but it’s promoted as a “free market” mechanism.
- "Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities.
"Carbon’s Power Brokers (6/1/08) An unprecedentedly radical government grab for control of the American economy will be debated this week when the Senate considers saving the planet by means of a cap-and-trade system to ration carbon emissions. “Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, declared in her opening floor speech today that a ‘recession is the precise time to’ enact the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill because it ‘brings us hope.’ “Despite these economic woes, Senator Boxer claimed that now is the ‘precise time’ to pass a bill that will raise energy prices. ‘Why do this [the Lieberman-Warner bill] now? We’re in a recession. Precisely because we’re in a recession is why we should be doing this. This bill is the first thing that brings us hope,’ Senator Boxer said during her opening remarks on the Senate floor today." Website: ICECAP URL: This Item icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/boxer_claims_recession_is_best_time_to_raise_energy_costs/URL: More References on AGW Politics: icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate Accessed Tuesday, June 03, 2008
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 2, 2008 21:54:28 GMT
What do you have against electricity? I thought this forum was filled with open minded folks?  An electric car, so "heavy and inefficient," will move you about 300 miles for about 60 kWh. Here, where electricity rates are the highest in the US ($0.16/kWh), that would cost about $9.60. The average for the country is about $.10 or $0.11 cents, so the cost would be $6 to $7. A 30MPG car will cost you 10 gallons of gasoline; a 50 MPG car would take 6 gallons. At $2.00 per gallon that's $12 to $20, at $3.00 that's $18 to $30. At $4, it's $24 to $40. The cars WILL be charged overnight, but the point you are missing or ignoring is that the peak for electricity demand by far is during the day when industry is open and early evening when people arrive to home. Feel free to look at some data rather than shoot from the hip: www.iso-ne.com/op_fcstng/sys_load/loadForecast.doIt would take a huge number of charging cars to make up the difference and the charging units could be set to stagger and/or be controlled by the utilities (perhaps allowed to be overridden for a price). In fact, since the average car driven in America goes about 15,000 miles per year, that means the average car would use 60 kWh per week, or just under 10 per day. Let's call it 10 kWh per day. According to this link, www.iso-ne.com/sys_ops/op_frcstng/7day_frcst/index.htmlISO New England currently has about 7,000 mWh unused capacity DURING PEAK LOAD after accounting for reserve. (Of course peak is in summer here, but let's keep it simple for a little bit.) Peak is about 17,000 mWh; actual usage overnight is about 12,000 mWh according to the first link so we've got at least 5,000 mW available per hour for about 10 hours just in the difference between peak day and overnight usage, for a total of 50,000 mWh. How many cars will that charge without another dime in infrastructure investment? 50,000,000 kWh / 10 kWh = 5 million cars. This does not take into account the fact that around the clock there is an additional 10,000 mW (240,000 mWh (another 24 million cars)) available and another 8,000 mW (192,000 mWh) "out of service" capacity sort of available. Do you have a guess as to how long it will take to get 5 or 10 million electric cars into New England? 10 years? So there will be 10 years to get the generation infrastructure (solar, wind, nuclear) going to meet the demand. Yes, during high load requirement days it might require careful timing for recharging and perhaps (GASP!) some conservation for the 5 or 6 days a year when the system is strained for capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 22:36:39 GMT
What do you have against electricity? I thought this forum was filled with open minded folks? An electric car, so "heavy and inefficient," will move you about 300 miles for about 60 kWh. Here, where electricity rates are the highest in the US ($0.16/kWh), that would cost about $9.60. The average for the country is about $.10 or $0.11 cents, so the cost would be $6 to $7. A 30MPG car will cost you 10 gallons of gasoline; a 50 MPG car would take 6 gallons. At $2.00 per gallon that's $12 to $20, at $3.00 that's $18 to $30. At $4, it's $24 to $40. The cars WILL be charged overnight, but the point you are missing or ignoring is that the peak for electricity demand by far is during the day when industry is open and early evening when people arrive to home.
Ron, I have nothing against electricity or electric cars in New England. Almost anywhere in New England is within a range of 300 miles. Or within the 140-mile range of a tank of Picken's Natural Gas (the fuel, not the ad.)
I do object to New England elites telling everyone else what they may or may not do. Let me suggest you drive across Colorado, the Dakotas, Kansas or Texas in this 300-mile wonder. Then return here with the total cost (your choice of options): - A second car
- An overnight hotel stay (twice, there and back again)
- A nice round-trip airplane ride
- A rental car
Out here in fly-over country, we may choose to travel 600 miles in a day. It takes about 12 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 2, 2008 23:12:33 GMT
Owch. Hey, I don't feel I'm an elitist here, and nothing I've said is meant to suggest that all electric is right for every application.
My philosophy has always been that a mix of everything is probably preferable with a very heavy reliance on solar and electricity. All-electric vehicles are WAY more efficient than gasoline powered vehicles in general, and specifically in urban settings; and reducing concentrated emissions from within city borders is a great thing to do along with stopping the bleeding of our economy for oil imports.
...and 5 years ago I took a year and drove 26,000 miles around the country in my full-size Tahoe pulling, diesel gulping, Freightliner chassis'ed, Caterpillar powered 30,000 pound class A bus-style motorhome (does that make me an elitist?) stopping in about 45 states and a bunch of Provinces (including 6 weeks in Alaska) for at least one night and one "touristy" thing. Plus another 10,000 miles in the Tahoe dinghy. I also spent time up in Barrow Alaska to see the North Slope desert first hand, then flew to Hawaii for a few weeks a couple of months later. The states I missed were Delaware (time issue), Iowa (time issue), Arkansas(refused to support Clinton's home state) and some New England states I had been in before or since.
I wonder where our economy would be if we hadn't spent a trillion dollars on oil imports over the last handful (5) of years? (12,000,000 barrels a day times 365 days times 5 years times $50/barrel)
(I am also a pragmatist and can read the handwriting on the wall. Without a tremendous upwelling of AGW skeptics, we are gonna get an energy plan that you won't like. We the skeptics ought to be trying to shape the plan into something that won't hurt us like a ban or have been a complete waste of capital if/when the rest of the world realizes that AGW wasn't real. I WANT to keep my motorhome and the right to drive it around.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 2, 2008 23:27:02 GMT
...and one of my favorite stories about the trip is when I was in Texas and my laptop-based GPS system said:
"Enter I-10 west. Drive 1080 miles and turn right at exit for Quartzsite, AZ"
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 23:36:08 GMT
Owch. Hey, I don't feel I'm an elitist here, and nothing I've said is meant to suggest that all electric is right for every application. My philosophy has always been that a mix of everything is probably preferable with a very heavy reliance on solar and electricity. All-electric vehicles are WAY more efficient than gasoline powered vehicles in general, and specifically in urban settings; and reducing concentrated emissions from within city borders is a great thing to do along with stopping the bleeding of our economy for oil imports.
Ron. Please accept my sincere and abject apologies for the implication of my post. I, too, favor a mix of alternatives, but it will take time to make them viable. From the rest of your post, I see that you are a kindred spirit with a yen for adventure. (Ours was crossing Lake Ontario on a pint of gas.) I have amended my post, but leave my embarrassment for all to see.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 3, 2008 0:41:52 GMT
Tax and Bankrupt: Democrat Candidate's Concern for the Coal Miner
Update: Obama Radio Interview Confirmed: Audio was heard November 3, 2008 around 1:02 am on Hannity & Colmes repeat on Fox News. I heard Obama's voice say what was reported. Astonishing! I will try to find link tomorrow on www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html.
Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal IndustryAuthor: P.J. Gladnick [Oops! My apologies to trbixler, he has priority and all credit for finding it! Good for you!]  Unfortunately, the link to the video crashed my PC three times, and it is not the space in the word "indust ry". This story is so important that I quote it below. Quoted: “Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview [1] has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine): “‘ Let me sort of describe my overall policy. “‘What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. “‘I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. “‘ So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.“‘That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. “’The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ( sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.'“NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here (link [2]) when you scroll down to the "In His Own Words" section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle! “ Links:[1] This one crashed Firefox on my PC: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ It might run on IE, but the last Flash update crashed me, too. [2] bizzyblog.com/ObamaSFchronInterview011708.html (Unfortunately, this text no longer has the bankruptcy statement, and I can not run the video.) Website Title: NewsBusters Date: November 2, 2008 URL: newsbusters.org/node/25829/print accessed: Sunday, November 02, 2008
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 3, 2008 1:00:32 GMT
Carbon Taxes, "AGW" and Socialist Ideology: Rep. Maxine Waters Type: Web Page Author: Kaslin Abstract: "This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh . . . would be about . . . basically taking over and the government running all of your companies," Rep. Maxine Waters told oil executives on May 22 during yet another show-trial congressional hearing. Website: Free Republic Date: May 29, 2008 www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2023272/posts accessed Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:30:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 3, 2008 1:48:15 GMT
Carbon Taxes, "AGW" and Socialist Ideology: Senator Bernie SandersU.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Addresses DSA National Convention. (DSA: Democratic Socialists of America) Author: Bernie Sanders Quoting pages 5-8: “I want to talk about another issue of huge consequence, and that is the issue of global warming. I am on both the Senate Environmental Committee and the Senate Energy Committee, which are the two committees dealing with this issue. What the scientists now tell us is that they underestimated the problem and that in fact global warming is moving faster and more severely than they had anticipated. That’s the bad news. The good news is that we know how to address this issue, and if we are smart about it, not only can we reverse global warming by moving toward energy efficiency, by getting cars that give us decent mileage per gallon, by building up the rail system, by moving to sustainable energies; if we do all of those things, you know what we do? Not only do we save the planet, we can create millions of good-paying jobs. “Just yesterday, I talked to the head of the largest electric company in America, Pacific Gas and Electric out in California. They’re going to be building a 535 megawatt solar powered light plant, which will provide electricity to 400,000 homes, and that is just the beginning. There are wind turbines out there that for rural America could provide almost 50 percent of the electricity that a home needs. Now, imagine if we were producing millions of these, and the kinds of jobs that we are creating. Imagine if we rebuilt our rail system so that it was the equivalent of Europe’s or Japan’s instead of what it is right now. More and more jobs. So we’re going to focus on global warming; we’re going to save the planet; we’re going to create jobs in the process.” Website Title: DemocraticLeft - Democratic Socialists of America Website Type: Newsletter Date: Winter 2007 dsausa.org/dl/Winter_2008.pdf accessed Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:22:58 PM
Curiouser and curiouser. Wonder who he is talking about? - Rail: Population density is the key to economically viable rail. According to data in the CIA World Factbook, the European Union has a population that is 44% of the U.S., GDP per capita that is 71.4% of the U.S., Population Density that is 367% of the U.S. He's probably thinking about the BoWash corridor, and perhaps San Francisco - Los Angeles. Aside from the great interior cities, the rest of us can subsidize them.
- Solar Power: Nice, if you can juice it up with a subsidy. Unfortunately, power is available only when the sun is up. That means "Spinning Reserves", since electricity must be generated at the instant demanded.
- WindTurbines: Available with subsidies and lots of lawyers for eminent domain cases. A slalom challenge for light aircraft. Also, need to deep-six P.E.T.A.; bad news for migrating birds and bats. The vanes don't even have to hit bats. The change in air pressure bursts their little lungs. Good news for mosquitoes. Oh, yes: "Spinning Reserves" will be needed.
So, Sanders is talking about you and me subsidizing the metros or being herded into the metros as great regions of the U.S. are re-tasked to Solar and Wind Turbine farms. Pity that make-work has no effect on the climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 3, 2008 2:28:31 GMT
Working in the auto industry, I can say with considerable degree of certainty the utopian dream of electric cars buzzing about is just that.....a dream. The EV1 was a POS. I realize people who watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" actually do believe GM is trying to go bankrupt by suppressing the wonderful electric car, but most people don't have the foggiest idea about the automotive world. It was a toxic waste dump on wheels. The liability for such a death trap was not worth GM's trouble, not to mention they lost their shirts. The much touted Tesla car is expensive not because it is a sports car, but the other way around; it is a sports car because electric cars are so incredibly expensive. Had they built a practical grocery getter, they'd only be marketable to the very wealthy Hollywood Greenies with private jets and huge mansions; a way to make them to relieve the guilt of being hypocrites .....well except for Ed Begley, a multi-millionaire living only like a millionaire in a small home with very expensive "green" appliances the average family could never afford. Now GM has the Chevy Volt at a cost of $40,000 and not a dime of profit in it. But hey, who needs profits right? One could say the GEM electric car is practical for certain applications. I might agree with that for very short jaunts during warm weather, but if I only had a few miles to travel to work, a cheap $2000 used gas car is just fine. For the most part it is novelty www.gemcar.com/models/ |
|
, see
