Jim Yanik wrote:
> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
> news:slrnh97gfm.ipb.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>
>> On 2009-08-25, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:
>>> Stewart wrote:
>>>> "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:h6s6h8$h56$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> "Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:as9km.116447$O23.2171@newsfe11.iad...
>>>>>> Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>> "jolly" <freedatingsites@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:e6d58861-c103-464d-8e30-4200ddb764f2@v37g2000prg.googlegroups
>>>>>>> .com...
>>>>>>>> Nissan Plans Wireless Charging on Electric Cars
>>>>>>>> http://www.techespot.com/2009/08/ele...less-rechargin
>>>>>>>> g-for.html
>>>>>>> We gain very little with electric cars if recharged with coal
>>>>>>> burning electricity. Carbon footprint savings are minimal, and
>>>>>>> the costs to recharge are not much better then gas. High mileage
>>>>>>> hybrids are probably a better way to go until the point comes
>>>>>>> where there is very little coal burning power generation.
>>>>>> Does saying things that aren't true make you feel
>>>>>> Authoritative?
>>>>> Read the post from Isaiah in response to Leftie, it is just one
>>>>> example of an analysis. If you have some better numbers, it would
>>>>> be
>>>>> much more authoritative to use them instead of using ad hominem
>>>>> attacks.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...thread/thread/
>>>>> bc78df0cc6ae61a1/d342809e58c284fe?q=group:alt.autos.honda+author:Is a
>>>>> iah
>>>>>
>>>> Hmm, now I see, "Leftie" has already had the opportunity to respond
>>>> to the post in the above link, yet he never has.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't read this group every day if I don't need help from it.
>>> If
>>> you look at the thread you quoted, I was involved in it. Still, if
>>> you really value my opinion that much: carbon emissions are just one
>>> aspect of power generation, and while coal is the highest in that
>>> respect (except, maybe, for burning garbage) it is also the worst in
>>> sulfur emissions. To dismiss EVs as not making much of an
>>> environmental difference because, in one carefully chosen comparison
>>> in a state with high electricity rates, they only save a little money
>>> over gas vehicles (unless of course you factor in IC vehicle
>>> maintenance costs!) is a tactic worthy of the kind of offhand
>>> dismissal I gave it. You give simplistic comparisons, I'll give
>>> simple detractions.
>> The EVs make minimal difference BECAUSE of what you state; The
>> electricity comes from Coal plants (mostly), and therefore generates a
>> large carbon footprint. Much higher, AAMOF, than a Hybrid. It has
>> little to do with money, and that was the point of the post you
>> answered in THIS thread.
>>
>
> actually,adding the extra load from a lot of plug-in EVs,you either get an
> INCREASE in carbon,as coal-fired plants are the quickest,easiest,cheapest
> way to add (needed)generating capacity,or you get brownouts and
> blackouts,because our present generating capacity is near maximum.
> Some places in the US already experience brownouts and rolling blackouts.


look up "off-peak charging." Most commuter vehicles can be charged
when demand is lower.

>
> solar and wind cannot provided the needed generation capacity,Obama is
> blocking nuclear power,and blocking new domestic oil and gas drilling and
> production.

That's your opinion, not fact.

>
> also,environuts are blocking new power transmission lines.

The only transmission line being blocked on environmental grounds
(your use of the term 'environuts' BTW, is very handy for spotting the
kind of Kooks who deny global warming) that I know of is one where the
utility keeps *saying* it wants to use the line for alternative energy,
but won't put it in writing. They also want to build it near Mexico's
dirty coal plants.

 

"Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message
news:CROkm.7749$fw1.3108@newsfe03.iad...
> Stewart wrote:
>> "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org> wrote in message
>> news:h6s6h8$h56$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message
>>> news:as9km.116447$O23.2171@newsfe11.iad...
>>>> Stewart wrote:
>>>>> "jolly" <freedatingsites@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e6d58861-c103-464d-8e30-4200ddb764f2@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Nissan Plans Wireless Charging on Electric Cars
>>>>>> http://www.techespot.com/2009/08/ele...rging-for.html
>>>>> We gain very little with electric cars if recharged with coal
>>>>> burning electricity. Carbon footprint savings are minimal, and
>>>>> the costs to recharge are not much better then gas. High
>>>>> mileage hybrids are probably a better way to go until the point
>>>>> comes where there is very little coal burning power generation.
>>>>
>>>> Does saying things that aren't true make you feel
>>>> Authoritative?
>>> Read the post from Isaiah in response to Leftie, it is just one
>>> example of an analysis. If you have some better numbers, it would
>>> be
>>> much more authoritative to use them instead of using ad hominem
>>> attacks.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...+author:Isaiah
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, now I see, "Leftie" has already had the opportunity to respond
>> to the post in the above link, yet he never has.
>>
>>
>
> I don't read this group every day if I don't need help from it.
> If you look at the thread you quoted, I was involved in it. Still,
> if you really value my opinion that much: carbon emissions are just
> one aspect of power generation, and while coal is the highest in
> that respect (except, maybe, for burning garbage) it is also the
> worst in sulfur emissions. To dismiss EVs as not making much of an
> environmental difference because, in one carefully chosen comparison
> in a state with high electricity rates, they only save a little
> money over gas vehicles (unless of course you factor in IC vehicle
> maintenance costs!) is a tactic worthy of the kind of offhand
> dismissal I gave it. You give simplistic comparisons, I'll give
> simple detractions.

If coal power generation is worst in sulfur emissions, then it is even
less advantageous to use an all electric vehicle. If you actually
read the information, I stated that in states with high electric
rates, the cost savings are minimal at best. Obviously, if oil goes
up as well as in states where electric rates are much less, there is
an immediate cost benefit.

Of course, you give no data, just a flippant and subjective response
which is much worse then even a "simplistic" comparison.

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9C71506E7785Bjyanikkuanet@74.209.136.83...
> "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org> wrote in
> news:h6shvj$t75$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> "rd" <Hd@invalid.invalid.net> wrote in message
>> news:h6sdn3$7n0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org> wrote in message
>>> news:h6qbct$4qr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "jolly" <freedatingsites@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:e6d58861-c103-464d-8e30-4200ddb764f2@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.co
>>>> m...
>>>>> Nissan Plans Wireless Charging on Electric Cars
>>>>> http://www.techespot.com/2009/08/ele...s-recharging-f
>>>>> or.html
>>>>
>>>> We gain very little with electric cars if recharged with coal
>>>> burning electricity. Carbon footprint savings are minimal, and
>>>> the
>>>> costs to recharge are not much better then gas. High mileage
>>>> hybrids are probably a better way to go until the point comes
>>>> where
>>>> there is very little coal burning power generation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The push to electric cars is not necessarily to save the world
>>> it's
>>> to loosen our dependence on mid east oil nations.
>>
>> One of the mantras has been carbon footprint, which may or may not
>> be
>> a minimal savings, depending on power generation method used.
>> There
>> is no free lunch, either petroleum or electric, the power comes
>> from
>> somewhere, and something has to be burned to get it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> one also has to remember that our electric utilities are close to
> full
> capacity already.A large change to plug-in electrics would mean
> brownouts
> or rolling blackouts,and Obama doesn't want new coal plants,plans to
> make
> coal use too expensive thru Cap n Trade,is blocking new nuclear
> power thru
> defunding Yucca Mountain waste repository,and alternative sources
> are not
> capable of making up the difference.
>
> (besides halting domestic drilling for oil and gas....)

Also one has to consider the amount of energy it takes to manufacture
new vehicles. We may be better off to have well maintained
"clunkers".

>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

 

"Stewart" <stewg@america.org> wrote in
news:ujanm.17261$Y83.6380@newsfe21.iad:

>
> "Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message
> news:CROkm.7749$fw1.3108@newsfe03.iad...
>> Stewart wrote:
>>> "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org> wrote in message
>>> news:h6s6h8$h56$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:as9km.116447$O23.2171@newsfe11.iad...
>>>>> Stewart wrote:
>>>>>> "jolly" <freedatingsites@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:e6d58861-c103-464d-8e30-4200ddb764f2@v37g2000prg.googlegroups
>>>>>> .com...
>>>>>>> Nissan Plans Wireless Charging on Electric Cars
>>>>>>> http://www.techespot.com/2009/08/ele...less-rechargin
>>>>>>> g-for.html
>>>>>> We gain very little with electric cars if recharged with coal
>>>>>> burning electricity. Carbon footprint savings are minimal, and
>>>>>> the costs to recharge are not much better then gas. High
>>>>>> mileage hybrids are probably a better way to go until the point
>>>>>> comes where there is very little coal burning power generation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does saying things that aren't true make you feel
>>>>> Authoritative?
>>>> Read the post from Isaiah in response to Leftie, it is just one
>>>> example of an analysis. If you have some better numbers, it would
>>>> be
>>>> much more authoritative to use them instead of using ad hominem
>>>> attacks.
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...thread/thread/
>>>> bc78df0cc6ae61a1/d342809e58c284fe?q=group:alt.autos.honda+author:Is a
>>>> iah
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, now I see, "Leftie" has already had the opportunity to respond
>>> to the post in the above link, yet he never has.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't read this group every day if I don't need help from it.
>> If you look at the thread you quoted, I was involved in it. Still,
>> if you really value my opinion that much: carbon emissions are just
>> one aspect of power generation, and while coal is the highest in
>> that respect (except, maybe, for burning garbage) it is also the
>> worst in sulfur emissions. To dismiss EVs as not making much of an
>> environmental difference because, in one carefully chosen comparison
>> in a state with high electricity rates, they only save a little
>> money over gas vehicles (unless of course you factor in IC vehicle
>> maintenance costs!) is a tactic worthy of the kind of offhand
>> dismissal I gave it. You give simplistic comparisons, I'll give
>> simple detractions.
>
> If coal power generation is worst in sulfur emissions, then it is even
> less advantageous to use an all electric vehicle. If you actually
> read the information, I stated that in states with high electric
> rates, the cost savings are minimal at best. Obviously, if oil goes
> up as well as in states where electric rates are much less, there is
> an immediate cost benefit.
>
> Of course, you give no data, just a flippant and subjective response
> which is much worse then even a "simplistic" comparison.
>
>
>

it all boils down to the fact that nuclear power is the cleanest and most
practical source of new electric power generation we have available RIGHT
NOW.
It's clean,and capable of providing LARGE amounts of electricity 24/7/365.
It doesn't "need time to be developed" either.
(and it provides good jobs for US workers.)

All it needs is the Administration to approve construction and stop
blocking Yucca Mountain Waste Repository.(safe storage of wastes)


We can(and should)develop waste reprocessing at our leisure,as long as we
have secure,safe storage.

This would also give us a chance to phase out coal-fired plants,and use our
coal stocks for conversion to power autos and jets,reducing our dependence
on foreign oil/gas sources.(along with domestic oil/gas drilling)
And THAT would put a crimp in the terrorists finances and increase OUR
security.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net