Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The AP reports:
"It's kind of hard to beat gasoline" for public and environmental health, said study co-author Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. "A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean ... are not better than gasoline."
The key is where the source of the electricity all-electric cars. If it comes from coal, the electric cars produce 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than gas, because of the pollution made in generating the electricity, according to the study that is published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They also are significantly worse at heat-trapping carbon dioxide that worsens global warming, it found.
The study examines environmental costs for cars' entire life cycle, including where power comes from and the environmental effects of building batteries.
"Unfortunately, when a wire is connected to an electric vehicle at one end and a coal-fired power plant at the other end, the environmental consequences are worse than driving a normal gasoline-powered car," Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science told AP.
Very interesting. They say that the study is from a PNAS publication, then link to an AP article, which does have a link to the current publications from the PNAS, but none of them are remotely related to what your article talks about. Bluntly, you are just repeating more lies from the assholes that are opposed to something that can give the individual homeowner the ability to manufacture the fuel for his vehicle.So, electric cars are not the green fix the greenies were dreaming of....how long after we are all forced into electric vehicles before they too will become enemy #1....
Study Finds All-Electric Cars Aren t Very Green At All - Leah Barkoukis
The AP reports:
"It's kind of hard to beat gasoline" for public and environmental health, said study co-author Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. "A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean ... are not better than gasoline."
The key is where the source of the electricity all-electric cars. If it comes from coal, the electric cars produce 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than gas, because of the pollution made in generating the electricity, according to the study that is published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They also are significantly worse at heat-trapping carbon dioxide that worsens global warming, it found.
The study examines environmental costs for cars' entire life cycle, including where power comes from and the environmental effects of building batteries.
"Unfortunately, when a wire is connected to an electric vehicle at one end and a coal-fired power plant at the other end, the environmental consequences are worse than driving a normal gasoline-powered car," Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science told AP.
Which do you think is more logical from an economic AND environmental perspective - in the short to medium term... compressed natural gas vehicles or battery powered vehicles?Very interesting. They say that the study is from a PNAS publication, then link to an AP article, which does have a link to the current publications from the PNAS, but none of them are remotely related to what your article talks about. Bluntly, you are just repeating more lies from the assholes that are opposed to something that can give the individual homeowner the ability to manufacture the fuel for his vehicle.So, electric cars are not the green fix the greenies were dreaming of....how long after we are all forced into electric vehicles before they too will become enemy #1....
Study Finds All-Electric Cars Aren t Very Green At All - Leah Barkoukis
The AP reports:
"It's kind of hard to beat gasoline" for public and environmental health, said study co-author Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. "A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean ... are not better than gasoline."
The key is where the source of the electricity all-electric cars. If it comes from coal, the electric cars produce 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than gas, because of the pollution made in generating the electricity, according to the study that is published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They also are significantly worse at heat-trapping carbon dioxide that worsens global warming, it found.
The study examines environmental costs for cars' entire life cycle, including where power comes from and the environmental effects of building batteries.
"Unfortunately, when a wire is connected to an electric vehicle at one end and a coal-fired power plant at the other end, the environmental consequences are worse than driving a normal gasoline-powered car," Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science told AP.
Thanks for the reply, Mr. R.10 years ago I might have said natural gas. However, with the speed of the technological improvements in the batteries, and the technology controlling the batteries, batteries are the future. Even in the short term. Simply look at the performance figures for and ICE running on natural gas compared to an electric vehicle. And with the increasing energy density of the batteries, the differance there will only increase. Add to that, most of us have no way of making our own natural gas.
fantasyland MUST read through that thread above.
yet only 8.3% of the grid!!!!And, of course, why should we use expensive coal generation, when wind is much cheaper?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...rt-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
Wind kicking ass on price, solar going to be doing the same in less than 3 years. Of course, the power is intermittant. Now how do we store that power?
yet only 8.3% of the grid!!!!And, of course, why should we use expensive coal generation, when wind is much cheaper?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...rt-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
Wind kicking ass on price, solar going to be doing the same in less than 3 years. Of course, the power is intermittant. Now how do we store that power?
yet only 8.3% of the grid!!!!And, of course, why should we use expensive coal generation, when wind is much cheaper?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...rt-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
Wind kicking ass on price, solar going to be doing the same in less than 3 years. Of course, the power is intermittant. Now how do we store that power?
yet only 8.3% of the grid!!!!And, of course, why should we use expensive coal generation, when wind is much cheaper?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...rt-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
Wind kicking ass on price, solar going to be doing the same in less than 3 years. Of course, the power is intermittant. Now how do we store that power?
Give it a few years and you'll be surprised.
[/URL]
