Switching to vehicles powered by electricity from renewables could save lives

[Mr. H.]

What difference does it make...

*tee hee*

So you're stumped by that question too, eh Mr. Horse's-ass?

Good to note that your posts are still completely vacuous and without substance. At least you're consistent in your insanity.

You again?

Feck off.

 

[RollingThunder]

What difference does it make...

*tee hee*

So you're stumped by that question too, eh Mr. Horse's-ass?

Good to note that your posts are still completely vacuous and without substance. At least you're consistent in your insanity.

You again? Feck off.

Mr. Horse's-ass is just another one of the endless supply of empty-headed rightwingnuts who are motivated by ideology (or money) to post long strings of very short posts (1- 6 words usually) consisting of meaningless, irrelevant drivel that adds nothing to any rational debate. They are either brainwashed retarded anti-science ideologues or they are getting paid by the post and don't care how moronic they sound. They 'dont need no stinkin' "evidence". They may not be capable of comprehending what 'scientific evidence' even means. Poor pathetic victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and the corporate propaganda machine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Switching to vehicles powered by electricity from renewables could save lives
2 hours ago

Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent. This finding comes from a new life cycle analysis of conventional and alternative vehicles and their air pollution-related public health impacts, published Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits. Conversely, vehicles running on corn ethanol or vehicles powered by coal-based or "grid average" electricity are worse for health; switching from gasoline to those fuels would increase the number of resulting deaths due to air pollution by 80 percent or more.

"These findings demonstrate the importance of clean electricity, such as from natural gas or renewables, in substantially reducing the negative health impacts of transportation," said Chris Tessum, co-author on the study and a researcher in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering.

A reason to switch to electric is it would save lives. Isn't that reason enough?

"Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent."

How is the electricity generated?

Well, ToadtheParrot, that is a really good way to maintain your reputation for being a complete idiot.

The statement: "vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy" doesn't give you even a hint? LOLOL.

Hey, asshole, which renewable source? Solar, wind, methane from landfills, switchgrass, hydro, tidal, greenies riding exercise bicycles? Some other expensive, unreliable source? Be specific.

What difference does it make, retard? If the energy that is coming down through the grid and charging your car comes from a renewable, non-carbon-emitting source, what difference does it make exactly which source, that is in any way relevant to the topic of the OP and the elimination of the tailpipe exhaust gases that cause smog and pollute our air in the cities and cause the health problems referred to in the OP?

How is it stored until it can charge the car battery?

The electricity coming off the grid right now is not currently being stored, but that is changing fast as the utilities rush to utilize the new battery storage developments that are coming on the market to store the energy from the intermittent sources like solar and wind that now just tend to compliment each other - solar during the day and wind at night when the winds blow stronger.

Like the good little denier cult parrot that you are, you will probably try to claim that the OP is bogus because the intermittency of solar and wind sometimes currently results in the need for gas powered 'peaker plants' to kick in to maintain the grid levels, so not all of the juice for the EVs is totally 'clean', but of course you will ignore the part of the OP where they state: "the study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits."

In fact, the trend more and more now, in the more advanced places, is to try, whenever possible, to integrate a rooftop solar system and home battery storage system into EV ownership so that you directly charge your own vehicles from the sun, entirely independent of the sources of the grid power. This is going to get much cheaper soon when the Tesla battery gigafactory in Nevada gets into production.

I know you're an idiot, but answer the questions so we can discuss if it would really work, instead of just make idiots like you feel good about themselves.

LOLOL. Let's see....electric vehicles = zero vehicle emissions.....while regular IC engine vehicles emit not just carbon dioxide, which is contributing to global warming, but also, collectively, hefty amounts of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, and floating particulate matter, and they emit these dangerous pollutants in the cities and everywhere else that people are concentrated and have to breathe that crap (seen a picture of Beijing recently?)....so only a real idiot like you, Toad, could possibly imagine that eliminating the tailpipe emissions of the internal combustion vehicles "wouldn't really work" in reducing the sickness and mortality associated with all of the smog from the gas guzzlers.

If the energy that is coming down through the grid and charging your car comes from a renewable, non-carbon-emitting source, what difference does it make exactly which source, that is in any way relevant to the topic of the OP

If the non-carbon source is solar, and your car doesn't get charged until after the sun sets, how does that make your car "powered by electricity from renewables"?

LOLOL. Let's see....electric vehicles = zero vehicle emissions..

Let's see....charge your electric vehicles from a coal plant = zero emissions? LOL!

 

[Mr. H.]

What difference does it make...

*tee hee*

So you're stumped by that question too, eh Mr. Horse's-ass?

Good to note that your posts are still completely vacuous and without substance. At least you're consistent in your insanity.

You again? Feck off.

Mr. Horse's-ass is just another one of the endless supply of empty-headed rightwingnuts who are motivated by ideology (or money) to post long strings of very short posts (1- 6 words usually) consisting of meaningless, irrelevant drivel that adds nothing to any rational debate. They are either brainwashed retarded anti-science ideologues or they are getting paid by the post and don't care how moronic they sound. They 'dont need no stinkin' "evidence". They may not be capable of comprehending what 'scientific evidence' even means. Poor pathetic victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and the corporate propaganda machine.

*yawn*

You say something, dear?

Where's my coffe, bitch.

 

[Politico]

Switching to vehicles powered by electricity from renewables could save lives
2 hours ago

Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent. This finding comes from a new life cycle analysis of conventional and alternative vehicles and their air pollution-related public health impacts, published Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits. Conversely, vehicles running on corn ethanol or vehicles powered by coal-based or "grid average" electricity are worse for health; switching from gasoline to those fuels would increase the number of resulting deaths due to air pollution by 80 percent or more.

"These findings demonstrate the importance of clean electricity, such as from natural gas or renewables, in substantially reducing the negative health impacts of transportation," said Chris Tessum, co-author on the study and a researcher in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering.

A reason to switch to electric is it would save lives. Isn't that reason enough?

No.

 

[RollingThunder]

Switching to vehicles powered by electricity from renewables could save lives
2 hours ago

Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent. This finding comes from a new life cycle analysis of conventional and alternative vehicles and their air pollution-related public health impacts, published Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits. Conversely, vehicles running on corn ethanol or vehicles powered by coal-based or "grid average" electricity are worse for health; switching from gasoline to those fuels would increase the number of resulting deaths due to air pollution by 80 percent or more.

"These findings demonstrate the importance of clean electricity, such as from natural gas or renewables, in substantially reducing the negative health impacts of transportation," said Chris Tessum, co-author on the study and a researcher in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering.

A reason to switch to electric is it would save lives. Isn't that reason enough?

No.

That's just your worthless unsupported and rather insane opinion, Pusticulo. One that fortunately confined to the lunatic fringe.

 

[Politico]

Unsupported? LOL I wasn't making a claim. My decision to buy one car over another is based on which one benefits me more. Until there is an electric model that can at least equal the performance of a gasoline powered car I have no interest. And there isn't one that is close. It is that simple.

 

[Old Rocks]

At present, the Tesla more than equals any ICE on all factors except range. In less than a decade, EV's will have equal or more range than ICE's.

 

[skookerasbil]

What difference does it make...

*tee hee*

So you're stumped by that question too, eh Mr. Horse's-ass?

Good to note that your posts are still completely vacuous and without substance. At least you're consistent in your insanity.

You again? Feck off.

Mr. Horse's-ass is just another one of the endless supply of empty-headed rightwingnuts who are motivated by ideology (or money) to post long strings of very short posts (1- 6 words usually) consisting of meaningless, irrelevant drivel that adds nothing to any rational debate. They are either brainwashed retarded anti-science ideologues or they are getting paid by the post and don't care how moronic they sound. They 'dont need no stinkin' "evidence". They may not be capable of comprehending what 'scientific evidence' even means. Poor pathetic victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and the corporate propaganda machine.

well........God bless them. At least they can be comforted by knowing they are not perpetually angry and miserable!!

 

[skookerasbil]

What difference does it make...

*tee hee*

So you're stumped by that question too, eh Mr. Horse's-ass?

Good to note that your posts are still completely vacuous and without substance. At least you're consistent in your insanity.

You again? Feck off.

Mr. Horse's-ass is just another one of the endless supply of empty-headed rightwingnuts who are motivated by ideology (or money) to post long strings of very short posts (1- 6 words usually) consisting of meaningless, irrelevant drivel that adds nothing to any rational debate. They are either brainwashed retarded anti-science ideologues or they are getting paid by the post and don't care how moronic they sound. They 'dont need no stinkin' "evidence". They may not be capable of comprehending what 'scientific evidence' even means. Poor pathetic victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and the corporate propaganda machine.

well........God bless them. At least they can be comforted by knowing they are not perpetually angry and miserable!!

s0n........when your response on every post includes, "retard, moronic clueless and empty headed brainwashed cultists.............."...........you have issues. Nobody who thinks their stuff is winning presents that way..........because you're losing and you know it, thus, the misery.

But carry on s0n.......our side insists!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Why are the progressives like Thunder miserable? Because nobody cares about their idea's though they think their idea's the most noble on the planet ( that's a whole other thread in a different forum)

You read their stuff on electric vehicles and you think the country is jumping out of their shorts to go out and buy them!!! Well..............theyre not.............if lucky, they sell 100,000 of these this year. Meanwhile, well over 1 million trucks..............just trucks.......... will be sold this year and with dropping gas prices, the uptick alone will surpass ALL EV vehicle sales.

Now for the joke..................

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/2014-sales-chart-apr-v1.png.html'][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11_1.gif.html][/URL]

 

[jc456]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

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.

So low end unsubsidized wind is already at about half of what dirty coal is, and only 2/3 the cost of natural gas generation. And solar is within about half a cent of dirty coal, and about a cent more expensive than natural gas. And the price is dropping for solar, even as we post. But, of course, both are intermittant. If we only had a way of storing the electricity.

only 8.3% of the grid. Laughable to say the least!

 

[jc456]

Switching to vehicles powered by electricity from renewables could save lives
2 hours ago

Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent. This finding comes from a new life cycle analysis of conventional and alternative vehicles and their air pollution-related public health impacts, published Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits. Conversely, vehicles running on corn ethanol or vehicles powered by coal-based or "grid average" electricity are worse for health; switching from gasoline to those fuels would increase the number of resulting deaths due to air pollution by 80 percent or more.

"These findings demonstrate the importance of clean electricity, such as from natural gas or renewables, in substantially reducing the negative health impacts of transportation," said Chris Tessum, co-author on the study and a researcher in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering.

A reason to switch to electric is it would save lives. Isn't that reason enough?

No.

That's just your worthless unsupported and rather insane opinion, Pusticulo. One that fortunately confined to the lunatic fringe.

holy crap, the stupid stick embedded itself in you!!!! Holy Crap batman. Did you actually just write that? Even you are allowed an opinion. Look up the definition!

 

[jc456]

Why are the progressives like Thunder miserable? Because nobody cares about their idea's though they think their idea's the most noble on the planet ( that's a whole other thread in a different forum)

You read their stuff on electric vehicles and you think the country is jumping out of their shorts to go out and buy them!!! Well..............theyre not.............if lucky, they sell 100,000 of these this year. Meanwhile, well over 1 million trucks..............just trucks.......... will be sold this year and with dropping gas prices, the uptick alone will surpass ALL EV vehicle sales.

Now for the joke..................

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/2014-sales-chart-apr-v1.png.html'][/URL]

the dude is obviously miserable. He probably doesn't sleep. He most likely feels he needs to save the planet 24x7 and is afraid to sleep in fear that global warming is going to reach out and grab him! hahhahahhahhaahhahahaha, what ...a....bunch.....of .....freakin....nutjobs. Oh....my......God!!!!!!! So you have to wait until 2018 to use it, I think that's a long time to wait to drive your car don't you? I'm sorry, I just can't believe this stuff. It's too funny!!!!!!

 

[Nosmo King]

Sounds like Mr. Al Goreable Warming is now spreading bullshit lies about how polluted the air is, caused by the gasoline engine. If that were the case the AVERAGE HUMAN life cycle in the 19th century wouldn't have been 49 years of age...compared to right now, 78.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/business/27leonhardt_sidebar.html?_r=0

Life Expectancy Data By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: September 27, 2006

For most of human history, the average lifespan was considerably less than 50 years. It began to rise markedly in the 19th century, hitting 49 in the United States in 1900, and then took off in the 20th century.

“Life expectancy increased only very slowly for two millennia,” said Richard Suzman, director of the Social and Behavioral Research Program at the National Institute on Aging, “and then almost doubled since 1800.”

Today, the average baby born in this country will live to 78. The average 35 year old will live to about 80. And the average 65 year old will live past 83.

For detailed data going back to 1900, click here and then go to Table 11, which appears on page 30 of the document.

Just think how the life expectancy would have faired if not for the gasoline engine.

right. medical science had nothing to do with increasing life spans. Neither did sanitation, agriculture or education.

 

[Porker]

Yeah...that "sanitation" achieved by burying our sewage, trash, garbage and nuclear waste sure cleaned up the air (ask the people who live by the landfills)...science did invent the catalytic converter for automobiles which drastically reduced air pollution by gasoling burning engines along with emissions inspections.

But a 70% decrease in deaths caused by air pollution using electricity in automobiles is the stuff of Al Goreabal warming. It's bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

Switching to vehicles powered by electricity from renewables could save lives
2 hours ago

Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent. This finding comes from a new life cycle analysis of conventional and alternative vehicles and their air pollution-related public health impacts, published Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits. Conversely, vehicles running on corn ethanol or vehicles powered by coal-based or "grid average" electricity are worse for health; switching from gasoline to those fuels would increase the number of resulting deaths due to air pollution by 80 percent or more.

"These findings demonstrate the importance of clean electricity, such as from natural gas or renewables, in substantially reducing the negative health impacts of transportation," said Chris Tessum, co-author on the study and a researcher in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering.

A reason to switch to electric is it would save lives. Isn't that reason enough?

The reason will occur when I get the exact same functionality from an electric vehicle that I get from a gasoline based one, i.e.

1) refill times of less than 5 minutes
2) range of 200-350 miles per tank not reduced due to ancillary equipment uses. (i.e. I only get 100 miles if I use the AC).

 

[Old Rocks]

1. Not for a while. But 20-30 minutes for a 80% is hardly a hardship.
2. Already achieved by Tesla. And using the AC does not reduce the range anywhere near the extent that you claim. About 10% is the reality. And better batteries are being worked on as we post.

Right now, the primary problem with EV's is the cost of the batteries. Reduce that, and they will drive the ICE's off the road.

Will this battery change everything - Fortune

Imagine an electric car that could travel more than 300 miles on a single charge. A pipe dream? Yes, for now. But a Michigan startup called Sakti3 just might make it a reality. In August the company announced that it was close to achieving the holy grail of power storage: a battery with about double the energy density of today’s lithium-ion technology at one-fifth the cost. Such a battery could give us the first $25,000 mass-market electric car, with a driving range that would please most customers.