Electric cars, unclean at any speed

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

This was written by someone who both designed and championed plug in cars before he looked at the facts.

Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum

More accurately the Author has a long history of being against them.

It even tells you in the linked article that he was part of GM when they caned the EV1 ... and points to his previous book "GreenIllusions" where he is just anti-green and anti-RE... this article is just one more in a string from this author against topics that he has a personal bias against.

And it is also I think important to point to what this author is actually suggesting as the direction to go.

If legislators truly wish to reduce fossil-fuel dependence, they could prioritize the transition to pedestrian- and bike-friendly neighborhoods.

Yes , a EV is a dirtier option when compared to walking and or a bicycle... even on RE ... that is the actual claim and direction this author wants.

So when are you ditching all your cars and going 99% walk / bicycle?

- - - - -

RE-EV is and will always be more energy efficient ... that's just the science of how it works.

RE-Gasoline is possible ... and might get cheaper $ some day ... but RE-EV is cheaper today.

Net personal energy usage goes down on RE-EV due to the increased energy efficiency of the net sum system.

[NeilBlanchard]

You know what I *hate* about renewable energy?

The smokestacks.
The smoke.
The smog.
The mercury pollution.
The cooling towers.
The explosions.
The spills.
The limited fuel supply.
The other countries that control the wind and the sun.
The military cost to defend the wind and the sun.
The radiation.
The death of miners.
The fly ash.
The tailing ponds.
The methane gas releases.
The huge carbon footprint.
The increasing cost over time.
The inefficiency.
The pipelines.
The contaminated water.
The damage to our lungs and overall health done by renewable energy is horrendous.
The acid rain is nasty.
The mountaintop removal.
The carbon dioxide released.
The waste.

NOT really...

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

About the most it could possibly be is 25% as that is the amount of energy that is derived from natural gas and oil. Once again that is the most it could be not the likely amount of US energy production.
Not according to their website its not. They say its a straight coal powered steam plant it may be possible to design a plant like this but nobody has yet. If you can name an example I would like to know of it.
and these low temperature stages might extract an additional 3 to 7% due to the low operating temps. Also a bottoming cycle tends to reduce the efficiency of the upper cycle. At some point a bottoming cycle no longer helps

They aren't likely to spend 50% more to get 10 % more output. The binary mercury vapor cycles proved to be uneconomical to build and operate in the past. Its not like we will see more of them in the future as they are the type of design that could use nuke or coal which provides better than 60% of US electrical needs currently.

YOU may say that the combined cycle generator yields only 25% percent efficiency. Siemens would like to disagree with you. They are claiming over 60%.

Press Releases - Siemens Global Website

And it seems as though they are not alone.

Here's General Electrics pitch.

How Combined Cycle Works - Renewable Energy | GE

And here is Mitsubishi's combined cycle plant offerings.

Combined Cycle Power Plants | Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas

There are several others that pop up in a Google search of "combined cycle power generation".

The plant RedDevil toured may or may not be anywhere near the claimed efficiencies. But the point remains the same. The power grid will improve. Even with the use of fossil fuels.

It seems my description of a triple combined cycle is largely an exercise in computer modelling. However, it is plausible and available if the need arises to push efficiencies towards 70%.

* It just dawned on me that you are speaking about the fuel use distribution in American power generation. It matters little. Gassified coal is used to power combined cycle power plants.

Your nit picking is just there to obfuscate the evidence that the grid can, and will improve.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

It is easy to pick at the scabs of old wounds. It is much more difficult to be a constructive healer. I could sit here and SLAM the automobile for its failures and there would be little good to come of it. I could SLAM fossil fuel for its evils and I would just be spinning in the mud.

Well, a lot of other people here are doing just that, and it doesn't seem to bother them.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

What solutions do you think would work for a world that WILL run out of fossil fuels sometime in the near future of humanity?

You don't know that for certain. If you are claiming with absolute certainty that you do, you are either a). trying to sell something, or b). acting on faith. In either case, such a position has nothing to do with discussing the future of energy.

And it's strange that nobody has actually challenged the sheer number of abandoned wind turbines that currently exist. 14,000? All of the articles I've read so far, that supposedly "debunk" this number, use the same kind of hand-waving and emotional outbursts in an attempt to change the subject away from the fact that there were in fact at least 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in existence in the US. "They screwed it up in the past, but We'll Get It Right This Time!" Oh, please. "14,000 wildlife-killing, decaying, polluting eyesores are surely better than the status quo." Really?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by t vago

You don't know that for certain. If you are claiming with absolute certainty that you do, you are either a). trying to sell something, or b). acting on faith. In either case, such a position has nothing to do with discussing the future of energy.

Dead wrong. It is absolutely certain that the world will run out of fossil fuels sometime in the near (in historical terms) future. That's just basic science and simple math: there's only a finite amount down there, the creation rate is infinitesimally slow, so eventually you get to zero. (Of course it will become economically impractical to use for fuel before then, as recovery costs rise.)

And it's strange that nobody has actually challenged the sheer number of abandoned wind turbines that currently exist. 14,000?

OK, I challenge it. Where are they? Unless you are counting all those turn of the 20th century Aermotor water pumps sitting on ranches, or (like my neighbors' one) kept for purely decorative purposes.

(If nothing else, those wind turbines probably contain a lot of copper. In a world where people will try to cut down live high-voltage power lines to sell as copper scrap, they aren't going to be there for long.)

And for counterpoint, how many abandoned oil wells and coal mines are there?

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

YOU may say that the combined cycle generator yields only 25% percent efficiency. Siemens would like to disagree with you. They are claiming over 60%.

I never said they were only 25% efficient. I said In response to your claim "I am quite sure it is much more widespread in its use." that the most of US electrical output it could be was 25%.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Dead wrong. It is absolutely certain that the world will run out of fossil fuels sometime in the near (in historical terms) future. That's just basic science and simple math: there's only a finite amount down there, the creation rate is infinitesimally slow, so eventually you get to zero. (Of course it will become economically impractical to use for fuel before then, as recovery costs rise.)

Ah, so it's faith.

Scientists Use Sunlight to Make Fuel From CO2
Sunlight to Petrol – A real solution or just a catchy phrase
Gasoline from water, CO2 and sunlight

Dead wrong. Sure. Whatever.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

OK, I challenge it. Where are they? Unless you are counting all those turn of the 20th century Aermotor water pumps sitting on ranches, or (like my neighbors' one) kept for purely decorative purposes.

Wind Turbines & “Green” Subsidies Under Fire
14,000 wind turbines have been abandoned in the United States
End of tax credit a blow for wind power industry

Do you want me to google some more stuff for you? You apparently are unwilling or unable to do so, yourself.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And for counterpoint, how many abandoned oil wells and coal mines are there?

You tell me. Better yet, tell me why environmentalists aren't trying their best to publicly shame the power companies into replacing and modernizing these abandoned turbines?

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by t vago

And it's strange that nobody has actually challenged the sheer number of abandoned wind turbines that currently exist. 14,000?

I also challenge it:
WIND-WORKS: Debunking Anti-Wind Myth of 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines in California

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

I also challenge it:
WIND-WORKS: Debunking Anti-Wind Myth of 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines in California

Godwin'ed in the third paragraph! Sorry, try again.

All good propaganda begins with a kernel of truth. Joseph Goebbels knew this and practiced it well. The Nazi's called it the "Big Lie."

Oh, this is good, too! So, this guy's the infallible expert on all wind turbines, everywhere?

That's simple enough. That's a number that can be verified. You could call me for example, and last week several media outlets did just that.

This is good, too.

I suspect the blogger doesn't care one way or the other. He has a point to make.

Well, DDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Everyone has a point to make.

Finally,

The anti-renewables (anti-wind, anti-EVs, climate skeptic, anti-everything) blogger makes a bogus statement. Then an affiliated or sympathetic fellow-traveler reposts the blog as gospel. Then the post goes viral. Within weeks if not days Google will have a unique search string to take you to the innumerable sites around the globe where variants on the original blog can be found.

Can't attack the information? Attack the messenger!

Hey, all - If you start insinuating that the evidence we bring is made up of lies without (you know) presenting any real countering facts, start dragging Nazis into your support, and start smearing those of us who have differing opinions as "deniers," don't expect any sympathy.

[Daox]

Just a reminder to keep it civil.