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.
Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards. Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards. Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
[youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards. Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
[youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards. Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
[youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented. Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it. With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed ‘lie’ that flat has posted. I find that extremely unlikely tbh. Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
Thank you for proving beyond a doubt the statement I have made before. Forget climate change, you right wing turds don't even believe pollution is harmful to human, fish and fowl.
And besides confirming that you side with polluters you are a fucking liar. On a previous thread you claimed you support cleaning up coal burning plants...a LIE.
Do you have a cartoon for liars and regressive turds who support giving a pass to entities that cause human injury and death?
What kind of morals would someone have who supports killing fellow citizens?
Heaven forbid we require coal burning power plants to obey the law that is over a decade old. Many of the power plants did obey the law and install the pollution controls. But there are still many who have not.
How's the view from that high ground BFGrn?? Can I put up a graph of the number
of botched surgeries expected from operating under flaky wind power? Or the decline in education that will occur under solar power when kids can't read or do their homework?
I DID say that I thoroughly believed there was a such a thing as clean coal technology... It OUGHT to be given a thorough shake-out on NEW generators.. NOT --- wasting money trying to retrofit 50 and 60 yr old facilities that have done the best they can to lower emissions.. Am I right about that?? Of course..
Note the 80/20 rule applies here as well.. New plants built about 1990 or so are an order of magnitude CLEANER than the BULK of the old clunkers.. Build NEW plants.. Close old ones == much cleaner air..
Now what really makes your grandstanding obnoxious is that you don't realize WHO OWNS and OPERATES the oldest dirtiest plants in the nation.. Yup -- the US of A govt who wants to bully OTHERS about their coal fired electrical generators.. Even TVA has made progress on these old plants..
TVA credits pollution reduction at power plants for clearer air in the Smokies | timesfreepress.com
The mountains of East Tennessee are getting back to being more smoky and less smoggy because the Tennessee Valley Authority has spent a combined $5.3 billion since the 1970s curtailing air pollutants created at its 11 coal-burning power plants, TVA officials say.
Two big ozone-producing culprits -- sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide -- have been reduced by more than 90 percent from peak levels. And with more planned coal plant closures -- and another $2.2 billion slated for emission control -- those levels are expected to continue to decline, said Duncan Mansfield, a spokesman for TVA.
By 2017, nearly 30 units at its coal-burning power plants will be closed, converted or cleaned up with emission-reducing "scrubbers" as part of an agreement with the Environment Protection Agency, Mansfield said.
Quick QUick now Squirrel Dog --- RUN to your Dear Leader and Shout in HIS FACE about the number of heart attacks due to "pollution".. Not mine.. Tell him you don't wanna WAIT til 2017 for HIM to get it done...
Let us know what he says...
Once a liar always a liar. Provide links to back up you claims. I don't see any TVA plants on any worst lists.
Ozzie Zehner only believes electric cars & alternatives are dirty because we are using a fossil fueled economy to make them. When asked if we used wind & alternatives to build them wouldn't they be cleaner than today. Zehner would not & could not answer that.
Bottom line is wind & solar have way higher EROEI than oil sands or oil fracking. Ozzie Zehner has thrown out bias research to push his minimalist Marxist, biodiversity, depopulation of useless human eaters agenda. Wind energy is more sustainable than hydrocarbons. Texas is producing more wind energy than their power grid can use.
Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards. Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
[youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
Ozzie Zehner only believes electric cars & alternatives are dirty because we are using a fossil fueled economy to make them. When asked if we used wind & alternatives to build them wouldn't they be cleaner than today. Zehner would not & could not answer that.
Bottom line is wind & solar have way higher EROEI than oil sands or oil fracking. Ozzie Zehner has thrown out bias research to push his minimalist Marxist, biodiversity, depopulation of useless human eaters agenda. Wind energy is more sustainable than hydrocarbons. Texas is producing more wind energy than their power grid can use.
Guess what, that means the research is based in real world terms, not fantasy land where all our power is generated by renewables.
You want to reject research that is based on facts in order to lean on research that ignores the reality of todays AND the near futures power grid?
That is what is
When the power grid is comprised of mainly clean forms of energy THEN we can push electric cars. Right now, those cars are WORSE than their gas cousins and will be filling landfills long before they able to utilize your imaginary grid.
The side benefit there is that if we fix the grid first, electric car technology might have finally advanced to the point where purchasing one would actually be worth it. When you are fucking with the market to force the green tech (that is actually black) this is what you end up with. A product that does worse than its competition in the field that is supposed to be its strength (green) and underperforms against its competition in virtually every other metric. I guess they are quite, thats worth 40K is it not?
Once we have a small percent of viable renewable up & running we can shove it in the face of OPEC as a bargaining chip. If they restrict supply & raise oil prices, market forces will switch to alternatives. They can't shut down our country or economy with their oil. We won't be standing around with our dick in our hand when there is no oil to build the alternative energy economy. Once built it will provide the energy to keep on building itself. Texas ERCOT found that if you use updated wind and solar power characteristics like cost and actual output to reflect real world conditions, rather than the previously used 2006 assumed characteristics, wind and solar are more competitive than natural gas over the next 20 years. This might seem a bit strange since weve been told for years by renewable energy skeptics that wind and solar power cant compete with low natural gas prices.
the added renewable generation in this sensitivity results in lower market prices in many hours [of the year]. This means that when real-world assumptions are used for our various sources of power, wind and solar are highly competitive with natural gas. In turn, that competition from renewables results in lower power prices and lower water use for Texas.
As state leaders look for ways to encourage new capacity in the midst of a drought, its important to realize that renewable energy is now competitive over the long term with conventional resources. The fact that renewable energy resources can reduce our water dependency while hedging against higher long-term prices means that however state leaders decide to address the energy crunch, renewables need to be part of the plan.
Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards. Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
[youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented. Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it. With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed lie that flat has posted. I find that extremely unlikely tbh. Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
Idiots like you cant keep to the point and keep bouncing all over the place on other subjects. This post has nothing to do with the topic. I realize that your argument is entirely lacking, that happens when you base it on insults and no data, but that is no reason to fill these pages with other topics. Start another thread on oil subsidies if you want to discuss that. You will likely find that all those idiots that dont want to subsidize alternatives actually dont want to subsidize oil either.Peer reviewed studies prove we have been subsidizing oil with our military at a rate of over $1 a gallon since 1970 just to keep oil & gas transport routs open. Plus we prop up leaders in key oil countries, supply forces to insure the supply in oil producing countries.
Idiot's like you believe we should not subsidize viable alternatives to get off the ground in a subsidized oil economy.
Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace. How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
[snip]
More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented. Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it. With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed ‘lie’ that flat has posted. I find that extremely unlikely tbh. Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
The facts are this:
EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
So WHAT should we do?
No, I am sure they would not. Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research. Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as more stringent emissions monitoring, would be more effective. “It’s something that has been used in Europe: remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog.” he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine. Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. “So what they’re trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road,” Zehner says.
Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace. How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented. Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it. With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed lie that flat has posted. I find that extremely unlikely tbh. Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
The facts are this:
EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
So WHAT should we do?
Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm. Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market. All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
No, I am sure they would not. Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research. Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as more stringent emissions monitoring, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine. Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.
All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace. How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.The facts are this:
EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
So WHAT should we do?
Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm. Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market. All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
No, I am sure they would not. Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research. Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as more stringent emissions monitoring, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine. Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.
All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
A utopia...
Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace. How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.
Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm. Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market. All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
No, I am sure they would not. Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research. Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.
All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
A utopia...
tell me something genius if an electric car put up more pop pollution enough cash car why should be keeping electric cars for the environment
Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace. How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.The facts are this:
EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
So WHAT should we do?
Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm. Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market. All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
No, I am sure they would not. Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research. Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as more stringent emissions monitoring, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine. Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.
All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
A utopia...
Ozzie Zehner only believes electric cars & alternatives are dirty because we are using a fossil fueled economy to make them. When asked if we used wind & alternatives to build them wouldn't they be cleaner than today. Zehner would not & could not answer that.
Bottom line is wind & solar have way higher EROEI than oil sands or oil fracking. Ozzie Zehner has thrown out bias research to push his minimalist Marxist, biodiversity, depopulation of useless human eaters agenda. Wind energy is more sustainable than hydrocarbons. Texas is producing more wind energy than their power grid can use.
Guess what, that means the research is based in real world terms, not fantasy land where all our power is generated by renewables.
You want to reject research that is based on facts in order to lean on research that ignores the reality of todays AND the near futures power grid?
That is what is
When the power grid is comprised of mainly clean forms of energy THEN we can push electric cars. Right now, those cars are WORSE than their gas cousins and will be filling landfills long before they able to utilize your imaginary grid.
The side benefit there is that if we fix the grid first, electric car technology might have finally advanced to the point where purchasing one would actually be worth it. When you are fucking with the market to force the ‘green’ tech (that is actually black) this is what you end up with. A product that does worse than its competition in the field that is supposed to be its strength (green) and underperforms against its competition in virtually every other metric. I guess they are quite, that’s worth 40K is it not?
Peer reviewed studies prove we have been subsidizing oil with our military at a rate of over $1 a gallon since 1970 just to keep oil & gas transport routs open. Plus we prop up leaders in key oil countries, supply forces to insure the supply in oil producing countries.
Idiot's like you believe we should not subsidize viable alternatives to get off the ground in a subsidized oil economy.
Texas Wind And Solar Are Highly Competitive With Natural Gas
Texas ERCOT found that if you use updated wind and solar power characteristics like cost and actual output to reflect real world conditions, rather than the previously used 2006 assumed characteristics, wind and solar are more competitive than natural gas over the next 20 years. This might seem a bit strange since we’ve been told for years by renewable energy skeptics that wind and solar power can’t compete with low natural gas prices.
“the added renewable generation in this sensitivity results in lower market prices in many hours [of the year].” This means that when real-world assumptions are used for our various sources of power, wind and solar are highly competitive with natural gas. In turn, that competition from renewables results in lower power prices and lower water use for Texas.
As state leaders look for ways to encourage new capacity in the midst of a drought, it’s important to realize that renewable energy is now competitive over the long term with conventional resources. The fact that renewable energy resources can reduce our water dependency while hedging against higher long-term prices means that however state leaders decide to address the energy crunch, renewables need to be part of the plan.
“the added renewable generation in this sensitivity results in lower market prices in many hours [of the year].”
A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as more stringent emissions monitoring, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine. Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.
Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace. How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.
Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm. Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market. All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
No, I am sure they would not. Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research. Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.
All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
A utopia...
No. None of that, whatsoever, can be inferred from my post. You are grasping again.
I figured that you didnt actually want an answer to the what do we do then question. It seems you have no interest in actually addressing the topic whatsoever outside of demanding that everyone is wrong.
You have been given the information and the topic; I am no longer going to play your childish games of insulting and diverting. If you really do want to discuss the topic, then do so and bring some data or research that backs you up. Otherwise, I simply will not engage with you again in this thread.
