# Are electric cars powered by coal-based electricity any benefit?



## larry909 (Dec 9, 2017)

Are there any viable alternative fuel sources other than (dirty) coal, that would make electric cars really that much cleaner?

Heard a report that countries around the world are setting deadlines when all cars on the road have to be electric, or at least a big percentage of the cars.

But is that a smart idea, considering that most of electricity is coal-based? Unless we go nuclear.

(I'm imagining that it's much worse to have coal-powered-electrically-charged cars than regular fuel, because the coal toxins are released into the air in the United States which makes it a local pollutant as opposed to the oil coming from somewhere else. And the cars themselves have probably cleaner Mufflers than the coal manufacturers in the United States. Is that right?)


----------



## weepete (Dec 9, 2017)

Electric cars have their issues. TBH I'm much more concerned about how this kind of policy is implemented. Industry wise there are a few things, for example the electricity does not have to come from coal, it could be hydroelectric, nuclear or from other renewables. The petrochemicals involved in the manufacture of electric cars needs looked in detail. Environmentalists like to tout about carbon neutral, but that's no use if, for an exteme hypothetical example, we change to a source that outputs sulphur.
Or if we fill our oceans with plastic (already happening) it'll be all freaking pointless anyway. Really need to look at the whole lifecycle.

Then there are implementation issues, for exaple if the government really wanted a switch to electric they need to not only provide a widely avalible fuel source that's easy to access and readily available but need to adrees cost. ATM electric cars are more expensive than regular fuel.If they were cheaper to buy and run than ordinary fuel most people would switch.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 9, 2017)

Yes, electric vehicles ultimately deliver cleaner air. It is much much easier to eliminate pollutants from a single stationary point source (power plant) than from thousands of mobile pollution sources.


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Dec 9, 2017)

larry909 said:


> But is that a smart idea, considering that most of electricity is coal-based? Unless we go nuclear.



This assumes an either or situation based on fossil fuel or atomic power but there is another way possible: renewable energy. If enough electricity could be generated by, say, wind farms or solar power or by tapping in to the energy available in the motion of the oceans, then  e-vehicles would be relatively clean. 

However, many reports suggest that making electric vehicles needs approximately seven times fewer workers than Diesel production, so there are going to be some difficult social challenges to solve on the road ahead. For me, mainstream manufacture of electric vehicles belongs to a world where automation, globalization and digitalization make it necessary to have new socio-economic models in place. Experiments are already being conducted in Europe regarding the idea of universal income:Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?


----------



## Destin (Dec 10, 2017)

It depends. 

My personal opinion is that we aren't really there yet with battery and recharging technology. Give it a decade and you'll see crazy advances in these departments. 

Ultimately for me, living in a rural area and doing a lot of road trips, they'd need to be able to give me a 600+ mile range with quick recharging before I'd even be potentially interested in one.. and we're some time from that reality. With a gas car and I can easily cover 1000 miles in a day and I do so semi-regularly. Electric cars don't have the range and recharging takes too long for this to be feasible.

For those who live in an urban/suburban area and rarely venture outside of a 100 mile circle, it's probably a great idea. And that's the majority of the world's population.


----------



## Overread (Dec 10, 2017)

A said its easier to control pollution from a handful of sources than it is to control countless sources. Not only can you control it easier but you can regulate it easier as well; consider how many cars are travelling around in a poor state of repair and thus might not be fully compliant with current emission guidelines.

The other aspect is that removing pollutants from cars isn't just about global pollution but more about local pollution in built up urban areas. Long term effects of car emissions in close contact with people on a daily basis is likely a bigger pusher for electric cars than is the world pollution levels; esp when you consider the vast amounts put out by aircraft and other major sources (though they too are slowly being regulated).


My view is that, honestly, we shouldn't need cars in a big urban areas anyway. Public transport should have been setup to allow for easy transport around most built up areas; with satellite carparks allowing travellers coming in to park their cars and take a nice clean electric bus/train in; whilst also allowing those in the town to then collect their car and travel out. 
Sadly we've built a car culture over the last 50-60 years to the point where a car is one of those things most people (outside of huge urban areas like london) not only expect to own, but often as not, are required to own to get around.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2017)

There's still more that can be done to the modern combustion engine that would help or even curtail pollution. My new diesel is a marvel of clean burn technology. With just over 10k on the odometer the tailpipe is still so clean that it could pass the white glove test, unlike previous black, belching models.

Intercity delivery trucks that do a lot of stop and go are already making use of hybrid technology that uses a combination of regenerative electric assist and a smaller internal combustion engine.

The problem with electric cars has always been the range and charge time, but Honda is working on a model that would fully recharge in 15 mins, and I heard this the other day on the news. Fisker patents car battery with 500-mile range on a minute’s charge The problem I see developing is what happens to the old batteries? Are we going to have stacks of highly toxic used batteries setting around with no where to dispose of, or will they be able to successfully and cleanly recycle everything.

Being tested in select cities are driverless electric vehicles that use a nesting approach. You place your order for vehicle via smart phone. An automated system bills your credit card and dispatches the vehicle from the closest nest. When completed it returns to the closest nest for charging, cleaning and inspection.


----------



## Overread (Dec 10, 2017)

A nested electric automatic car system could easily work in urban areas; though I'd say it would only really work well if you removed the bulk of manual driven cars; or restricted them to only select roadways. 

Also diesel is heading out faster than petrol based on new studies that show its even more harmful to human health than petrol emissions.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2017)

Overread said:


> Also diesel is heading out faster than petrol based on new studies that show its even more harmful to human health than petrol emissions.



Possibly in passenger vehicles, but I doubt you'll see it in large trucks, even if they go to a hybrid configuration. The diesel's higher torque at lower RPMs is far superior to a gas engine, and the modern pollution control with DEF does an excellent job.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 10, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> The problem with electric cars has always been the range and charge time, but Honda is working on a model that would fully recharge in 15 mins, and I heard this the other day on the news. Fisker patents car battery with 500-mile range on a minute’s charge


The math is not that difficult.  If you have a 30 KWH hour battery that is completely depleted then you have to put roughly 115% of the capacity back into it.  30 KWH = 30,000 watts for an hour and since watts = amps x volts then at 120 volts you would have to charge the battery at approximately 287.5 amps for an hour.  At 480 volt, 3-phase you would have to charge it at about 37.7 amps for an hour (assuming a 90% power factor in converting volt amps to watts).  To charge it in a minute at 480v, 3-phase (also assuming 90% power factor) you would have to supply roughly 2,260 amps.  Not many places have a 480v, 3-phase, 3,000 amp service and I don't foresee many installing one in the near future just to charge electric vehicles.  Higher voltages will yield lower ampacities for a given charge time however the National Electric Code has a lot so say about installations of any type, and even more when at 600 volts and above.

But personally I really wish more people would drive electric vehicles.  I look forward to the day when the vast majority of people are doing so.  It will eliminate any concerns about gas shortages for those who have no use for them.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 10, 2017)

I have seriously been looking at an electric vehicle for some time. That Californian car maker seems to have the most advanced/useful car around, but it is also one of the most expensive. I think I could manage my long trips and daily driving routines using the specs from a Tesla, but they're just so dang expensive. The Model 3 is significantly cheaper than the other models, but the 3's sold out within a week or so of after announced.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2017)

SCraig said:


> I don't foresee many installing one in the near future just to charge electric vehicles



Where there is demand you will find access. 5 years ago, I would not expect to pull into a restaurant parking lot and see a couple of charging stations for electric vehicles. Now it's not that uncommon especially in high traffic areas. Pull in, plug in, swipe your credit card and charge your vehicle while you eat.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2017)

@Gary A. One of my good friends wife has a Lexus Hybrid, that she loves. However she did find out quickly that the regenerative system doesn't work well in a rural environment where stops are farther apart. If they lived in town, I suspect she would see significant gains in fuel economy.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 10, 2017)

She needs to ride those brakes.  I suggest she drives with two feet, one on the brakes the other on the 'gas'.  Mary Lou is actually looking at a hybrid, but Gary is more of a pureist.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> She needs to ride those brakes.  I suggest she drives with two feet, one on the brakes the other on the 'gas'.  Mary Lou is actually looking at a hybrid, but Gary is more of a pureist.



LOL, she is the proverbial "little old lady from Pasadena" pretty much a lead foot. She had a bright red mustang convertible with the 300hp V6, until the "family" decided that might be just a little much for her and her lead foot.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 10, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > I don't foresee many installing one in the near future just to charge electric vehicles
> ...


Charging stations are very common out here.  Especially Tesla, (as one would expect), has charging station all over the state.  One can easily drive from one end to the other end of California without fear of being stranded. Charging stations are appearing everywhere now, nearly every parking lot, every mall, every fourth restaurant, even parking meters now have charging stations (a few on every block).  Hydrogen filling stations are now popping up in LA.  Typically, hydrogen is being used mainly in fleet situations, but slowly, experimentally being introduced outside of fleets.

But, how hard would it be for every gas station to set up charging stations ...


----------



## pendennis (Dec 10, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> But, how hard would it be for every gas station to set up charging stations ...



The design, engineering, and installation processes are already here.  It's the cost.  Right now, it's around $30K, to convert a single contemporary pump to a charging station, but not likely to drop significantly in price, even with higher installation volumes.  Take a small sized service station with a dozen pumps, and the cost is @ $360K.  Not enough doughnuts and coffee to subsidize the initial outlay.

Right now, there's a tremendous opportunity to use natural gas to power electrical power plants.  Coal is not the answer long term, although the fuel generation conversion processes designed in the 1930's, and continued into the 1970's are still viable.  The other solution is nuclear generated power, and that's the best of all.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 10, 2017)

pendennis said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > But, how hard would it be for every gas station to set up charging stations ...
> ...


Giving it more thought, yeah, toss charging stations into existing gas stations and a slight redesign of gas stations to accommodate a 40 minute or so wait. Setup coffee bars, video stations, barber shops, _wine tasting_, et al for the wait. But long term, a charging station doesn't need the footprint of a gas station ... so long term stations can easily be everywhere. I don't have a fear of nuclear energy, but out here Solar makes a lot of sense.  The power utility companies out here are jointly building a huge battery/energy storage facility for wind and solar power generated energy.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2017)

@pendennis I'm not if it would even be advisable to convert gas pumps. I don't see the gas/diesel engine disappearing for some time. What I do see is a change in how you think about refilling your electric vehicles. As more and more charging stations become available at parking lots, malls, etc., there will be no need to "drive" to a designated refill point.


----------



## Overread (Dec 10, 2017)

In my view the biggest issue is batteries. 
The best way to charge rechargeable would be to simply have easy to remove batteries in the car; then simply swap them over for fresh ones from a garage. Then you've got charging for overnight/top-ups and you can drop into a garage for a full charge. Of course the downside is that the batteries are expensive and not easy to produce and thus are both valuable and a limited resource. Already electric cars tend to have a lot so trying to have spares in garages might not be financially feasible.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 10, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @pendennis I'm not if it would even be advisable to convert gas pumps. I don't see the gas/diesel engine disappearing for some time. What I do see is a change in how you think about refilling your electric vehicles. As more and more charging stations become available at parking lots, malls, etc., there will be no need to "drive" to a designated refill point.


These are numbers that are coming out of California, where the idea is to make electric mandatory in a number of years.  They've mandated phasing out fossil fuel vehicles.  Even to put charging stations at malls, parking lots, etc., the cost is huge, and a mall would be required to pay huge amounts to upgrade their power stations to allow vehicle recharge.  And no one has any idea how much will be too much when it comes to adding charging stations, regardless the location.  No one in their right mind will want to have that type of excess capacity just sitting around waiting for someone to arrive for shopping.  

IMHO, the "service" station won't disappear, even if they're converted to electric filling stations.  There will always be people who will stop for a "refill" in the traditional manner.

I'm still a skeptic when it comes to the conversion anyway.  Right now, this country is not increasing its electrical grid fast enough for current demand.  The infrastructure here in Michigan is not nearly as reliable as it should be.  A windstorm here can put several hundred thousand people out of power in one event, and then it will be days, even with mutual support from surrounding states, for it to be completely restored.  I'm sure that we're not alone.  It takes extraordinary times and amounts of money to even get a new plant approved.

Nationwide, there are huge numbers of coal-fired and nuclear plants nearing the end of their useful lives, yet too many people oppose anything but "renewable".  And renewables, such as windmills are never going to recover their manufacturing costs.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 10, 2017)

Overread said:


> In my view the biggest issue is batteries.
> The best way to charge rechargeable would be to simply have easy to remove batteries in the car; then simply swap them over for fresh ones from a garage. Then you've got charging for overnight/top-ups and you can drop into a garage for a full charge. Of course the downside is that the batteries are expensive and not easy to produce and thus are both valuable and a limited resource. Already electric cars tend to have a lot so trying to have spares in garages might not be financially feasible.


I think electric car batteries are too massive/heavy for an easy swap.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 10, 2017)

pendennis said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > @pendennis I'm not if it would even be advisable to convert gas pumps. I don't see the gas/diesel engine disappearing for some time. What I do see is a change in how you think about refilling your electric vehicles. As more and more charging stations become available at parking lots, malls, etc., there will be no need to "drive" to a designated refill point.
> ...


California has a goal of 100% renewable by 2045.  Presently renewables make up about 27%. 
California has a goal of 50% clean energy by 2030.  Presently, 44% of California's energy generation consumes natural gas. (Natural gas is twice as clean as coal.)


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2017)

@Gary A. I'm curious, a few years ago there was a move on to put clean air restrictions on over the road trucks entering the port at LA. We had already pulled out of west coast market, so it wasnt a big deal for us, but for those still going, there was a lot of talk about simply boycotting CA completely. If the state moves to 100% renewable does that include trucks and trains?


----------



## Designer (Dec 11, 2017)

larry909 said:


> Are there any viable alternative fuel sources other than (dirty) coal, that would make electric cars really that much cleaner?
> 
> Heard a report that countries around the world are setting deadlines when all cars on the road have to be electric, or at least a big percentage of the cars.
> 
> ...


Modern coal plants have high-tech scrubbers that remove much of the toxic by-products of combustion.  They are much cleaner than plants of old.


----------



## Designer (Dec 11, 2017)

Overread said:


> In my view the biggest issue is batteries.
> The best way to charge rechargeable would be to simply have easy to remove batteries in the car; then simply swap them over for fresh ones from a garage. Then you've got charging for overnight/top-ups and you can drop into a garage for a full charge. Of course the downside is that the batteries are expensive and not easy to produce and thus are both valuable and a limited resource. Already electric cars tend to have a lot so trying to have spares in garages might not be financially feasible.


Not just using them, but the manufacturing process, including obtaining raw materials is very harmful to the environment.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 11, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @Gary A. I'm curious, a few years ago there was a move on to put clean air restrictions on over the road trucks entering the port at LA. We had already pulled out of west coast market, so it wasnt a big deal for us, but for those still going, there was a lot of talk about simply boycotting CA completely. If the state moves to 100% renewable does that include trucks and trains?


Between the shipping and the trucks the Port of LA's air was extremely polluted.  Los Angeles enacted air pollution standards for both.  I think the 100% renewable/SB100 is directed purely at energy generators.  But I'll look into it.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 11, 2017)

larry909 said:


> Are there any viable alternative fuel sources other than (dirty) coal, that would make electric cars really that much cleaner?
> 
> Heard a report that countries around the world are setting deadlines when all cars on the road have to be electric, or at least a big percentage of the cars.
> 
> ...


Where are you getting your information from ?

Many coal plants in the US have converted and many more are converting to Natural Gas for electricity generation.
Petro and NatGas are used more than coal in the US nowadays with coal dropping more.
==>Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration
==> Mapping how the United States generates its electricity







The test plant in the south to create a cleaner coal plant was shut down and is not only NatGas.
==> Kemper Project - Wikipedia

China still uses coal a lot but are converting over to NatGas.  The U.S., now a LNG exporter is having issues getting their LNG through the recent Canal expansion.
==> Market Analysis of Natural Gas for Power Generation in China - ScienceDirect

In Europe ==> Overview of the electricity production and use in Europe


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 11, 2017)

I've always wanted an electric car since they first became available from GM and Honda in the US. But they were cost prohibited and didn't have the features and requirements that I needed.

One of my cars is a hybrid.  The Lincoln Mkz Hybrid.  If I stay off the highway I get the best mileage.  The Drive to/from work is from 40 to 60mpg on it.  Many local trips can be all electric at times or a mix.  But many time I've above 60mpg, such as below which I averaged 118.7mpg on a short trip.





Before I bought the Mkz I looked at the sister car the Fusion Hybrid and Fusion Energi (which avgs much more mpg) and other plugins.  But the additional cost (need to add in the cost of a charger at home, and home electrical costs to determine a TCO) they actually cost more over time than a hybrid.  When the technology reduces a bit, such as the Tesla Model 3 then it will be more affordable.


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 11, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Yes, electric vehicles ultimately deliver cleaner air. It is much much easier to eliminate pollutants from a single stationary point source (power plant) than from thousands of mobile pollution sources.



It's not as simple as that.
Cleaning exhaust gases at a large static power plant is certainly easier, but electricity has significant transmission & storage losses, and nearly all the batteries around utilize toxic components...

As yet there is no magic bullet


----------



## pendennis (Dec 11, 2017)

Besides their heavy subsidization by governments, accelerated depreciation, tax breaks, etc., the true cost of wind farms is unknown.  People also don't take into consideration the ancillary costs for backup power systems, infrastructure costs (roads, site construction, distribution routes).

The footprint of windmills is very broad, eliminating the possibility of truly massed power generation.

Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 11, 2017)

petrochemist said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, electric vehicles ultimately deliver cleaner air. It is much much easier to eliminate pollutants from a single stationary point source (power plant) than from thousands of mobile pollution sources.
> ...


Nothing is ever simple.  But it is certainly a factual generalization and starting point.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 11, 2017)

pendennis said:


> Besides their heavy subsidization by governments, accelerated depreciation, tax breaks, etc., the true cost of wind farms is unknown.  People also don't take into consideration the ancillary costs for backup power systems, infrastructure costs (roads, site construction, distribution routes).
> 
> The footprint of windmills is very broad, eliminating the possibility of truly massed power generation.
> 
> Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.


All those points will be addessed and mitigated during the permitting process. (At least in California they will be.)


----------



## Overread (Dec 11, 2017)

Wind farms have caused huge problem when they've been placed on migratory routes and ended up carving through birds and butterflies. I still maintain that for all the good of renewable its just too little power for the large areas required to be dedicated to produce enough energy for modern requirements. Dams (Hydro Electric) require huge areas to be flooded; have a limited life span (they silt up unless you dredge them) and can cause huge problems for rivers (sudden lack of silt - the Nile Delta is collapsing due to a starvation of silt); wind farms require huge areas and are a risk for flying animals; solar again requires huge areas. 

I personally think nuclear is the future; its clean during production and its only major risks are in the waste disposal and storage. The other issue is the insane cost that they come with which can cripple companies before they've even got to building.


----------



## waday (Dec 11, 2017)

pendennis said:


> Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.


All power has environmental costs. Have you compared the environmental costs of wind power to, say, coal or natural gas plants? What about nuclear plants? Or hydroelectric?

Yes, birds are a problem with windmills. I'm interested to know how that compares to the millions of fish and other aquatic fauna that die each year due to water intakes from power plants. Or the noise from these power plants compared to wind mills. Have you done this analysis?


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 11, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> larry909 said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any viable alternative fuel sources other than (dirty) coal, that would make electric cars really that much cleaner?
> ...


Natural gas, while much cleaner than coal, is still a fossil fuel.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 11, 2017)

@ smoke665:  A cursory look into legislation for commercial trucking shows nothing on the books.  But, the state is holding workshops and seminars looking into the future for heavy duty zero emissions vehicles (HD-ZEV).  Essentially, the first step is gathering all the data of the present and future usage of HD vehicles in California (how many, what kinds, et cetera) ... where California wants/needs to go ... and how best to reach that future goal.  Apparently, California is already working with major HD vehicle manufacturers both domestic and international companies.  A ramping from diesel to AFV is proposed utilizing biofuels, fuel cells, hybrids, battery electric, et al. For HD-ZEV it seems like a 2.5% goal by 2023 and a 15% goal by 2030.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 11, 2017)

I just want to be the first person to put a 350 small block in a Tesla!


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 11, 2017)

To slow it down ...


----------



## pendennis (Dec 11, 2017)

waday said:


> pendennis said:
> 
> 
> > Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.
> ...


Hydroelectric, gas, coal, and nuclear have been studied ad nauseum.  And there are plenty of folks out there, pro and con, who've done the comparisons.


----------



## waday (Dec 11, 2017)

pendennis said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > pendennis said:
> ...


You've thrown a statement out there with authority, which can be read as quite a negative perspective of wind energy. If you haven't done the research yourself, I'm assuming you've read and can provide links to the extensive studies and comparisons?


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 11, 2017)

I don;t have an ax to grind with gasoline.  If they could run cars on water, that would be fine with me.  The problem with electric cars is that they're enormously expensive.  You're paying an awful lot for the battery that would buy many of the convenience and luxury features that you could get in a gas fired auto.  A Tesla 3 costs $10-12K more than a similarly furnished gas run car. And much of those costs are being paid with tax rebates yet still cost more that a similarly furnished auto running on gas. 

Then there's the issue with depreciation.  Batteries eventually have to be replaced.  What's the value of your car when you get to that point?  If you want to sell it, you'll get nothing for it because the buyer's going to be stuck paying thousands more to replace the battery.   Electric has nice cachet if you have a lot of money.  But for the average owner, the economics aren't there, not yet anyway.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 12, 2017)

waday said:


> ...
> You've thrown a statement out there with authority, which can be read as quite a negative perspective of wind energy. If you haven't done the research yourself, I'm assuming you've read and can provide links to the extensive studies and comparisons?



My statement wasn't presented as any sort of "authority".  It's an observation based on my background in finance, accounting, and systems.  I can read and understand financial statements, and I can read a prospectus.  I'm a skeptic about any "systems" which tout advantages without proper vetting.  "Green" energy is one of those which purports to be a panacea, replacing fossil-based and nuclear energy, but has to be propped up using tax credits and government subsidies.  Not one of the statements I've read has done an end-to-end fully costed analysis.

For instance, steel making requires huge amounts of constant electrical power.  If wind were such a great deal, why aren't steel makers rushing to convert their mills to wind powered electric for their plants?  AC power can't be stored, and has to be ramped up or down as demand requires.  Wind and solar are completely dependent on weather conditions.  Long periods of windless or cloudy days mean no energy production, and dependence on alternative fossil or nuclear sources.

Any energy solution has to have a market-driven focus.  Solar and wind are largely being driven by political forces relying on scientific benefits that are dubious at best, non-existent at worst.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 12, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> A cursory look into legislation for commercial trucking shows nothing on the books.



The old axiom "there's no such thing as a free lunch" applies. We live in a large, spread out country, the ability to move goods rapidly, is what has allowed us to grow. Back when we were in transportation, we explored several options for container and piggy back shipping by rail. While in some cases it worked out cheaper (cross country), the time to move the goods was just far to excessive for most of our customers. I know there's a lot of testing going on in the local delivery segment, UPS has actually jumped on the idea already and is testing  https://www.trucks.com/2016/05/03/ups-places-large-workhorse-hybrid-delivery-truck-order/ but the problem still remains, that these types of vehicles are not for over the road, where the stops are far and few between. Add to that the cost of the hybrid vehicle, and you're looking at increased costs for shipping.


----------



## waday (Dec 12, 2017)

pendennis said:


> My statement wasn't presented as any sort of "authority". It's an observation based on my background in finance, accounting, and systems.


First, thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your finance perspective on the topic, something that's usually not discussed.

Second, the statement that I initially questioned had little to do with finance, rather dead birds and noise pollution. However, I'd appreciate a response from your finance perspective on the social and environmental costs (literal costs) from this. As an engineer (and consultant), I work on a very small portion of what power plants do, and in that small portion, we deal with social and environmental costs of impacts to society and the environment. Any thoughts?


----------



## BananaRepublic (Dec 12, 2017)

tirediron said:


> I just want to be the first person to put a 350 small block in a Tesla!



The current Tesla is the fastest production car available at the moment why would want to ruin that with sticking lump of pig iron into it..


----------



## BananaRepublic (Dec 12, 2017)

waday said:


> pendennis said:
> 
> 
> > My statement wasn't presented as any sort of "authority". It's an observation based on my background in finance, accounting, and systems.
> ...



On pollution I find it very strange that people globally dont like wind turbines beacause they spoil the view but their happy to breath in cancer causing engine fumes or bury their garbage in a hole in the ground.

Re finance, The current pcp car finance pushed by manufactures will lead to an another credit meltdown as people will no longer want combustion engines.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 12, 2017)

As mentioned, large power plants need reserves at the facility to maintain power output.  That's why certain areas of the country are good for other alternative power generation.
Mapping how the United States generates its electricity

With Petroleum, they store the liquid in large storage containers.
Coal in large piles
NG usually in train cars or storage containers (or even underground).
Solar and Wind has to use batteries for storage.

If you have constant winds, then maybe wind can help in power generation.
Constant Sun with battery backup, then Solar is good. 
But they still need the distribution grid to provide the power to customers, unless they are more regional/local.

I love solar but it has a large footprint such as this one that was damaged in puerto rico






Where I work we have built a LEEDS platinum and gold buildings to go towards lowering their carbon footprint.  The Platinum one I was involved in.  Solar, geothermal a nice (though highly expensive) low emissions building that needed state grants to be built.

I do love electric cars but even my analysis made it more expensive than a gas car.   The Lincoln though starts at the same price as it's gas version thus it made the choice relatively easy.  Though, the batteries degrade over time and need replacing, which are quite expensive.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 12, 2017)

BananaRepublic said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to be the first person to put a 350 small block in a Tesla!
> ...


it beats a lot of cars, just not all of them





You can see tons of videos online of the Tesla beating streetracers, supercars, etc.  though.


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 12, 2017)

BananaRepublic said:


> On pollution I find it very strange that people globally dont like wind turbines beacause they spoil the view but their happy to breath in cancer causing engine fumes or bury their garbage in a hole in the ground.
> 
> Re finance, The current pcp car finance pushed by manufactures will lead to an another credit meltdown as people will no longer want combustion engines.



If I pop down to the local beach, I can see over 120 turbines on a clear day. IMO they improve the view as there's very little out there to see (or photograph) without them!
On one of the occasions when there was something else worth photographing I think they added to the image too:



Wind power - old &amp; new by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
The 5 turbines that are shore based locally aren't as attractive, but I don't find them a significant eye sore (unlike the numerous new homes being built in the area).


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 12, 2017)

If an internal combustion engine was developed that got 100 miles on highway would electric vehicles still be viable? The other thing that's the elephant in the room, who pays for the roads all vehicles drive on? Currently fuel taxes pay for road construction, if your electric vehicle doesn't buy gas, you're not paying your fair share. The current fuel tax is at odds with energy efficiency as mileage goes up, taxes collected go down.

Astro brought up a valid point, in that energy conservation is a multifaceted plan. We built our house to be energy efficient and to utilize passive solar heating in the winter. There are no moving parts to passive, nothing to break, and nothing to wear out.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

I don't mind wind turbines ... beats lung cancer any day.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> If an internal combustion engine was developed that got 100 miles on highway would electric vehicles still be viable? The other thing that's the elephant in the room, who pays for the roads all vehicles drive on? Currently fuel taxes pay for road construction, if your electric vehicle doesn't buy gas, you're not paying your fair share. The current fuel tax is at odds with energy efficiency as mileage goes up, taxes collected go down.
> 
> Astro brought up a valid point, in that energy conservation is a multifaceted plan. We built our house to be energy efficient and to utilize passive solar heating in the winter. There are no moving parts to passive, nothing to break, and nothing to wear out.


In California, we have raised the registration fees and I believe the sale tax on electric vehicles.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 12, 2017)

waday said:


> First, thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your finance perspective on the topic, something that's usually not discussed.
> 
> Second, the statement that I initially questioned had little to do with finance, rather dead birds and noise pollution. However, I'd appreciate a response from your finance perspective on the social and environmental costs (literal costs) from this. As an engineer (and consultant), I work on a very small portion of what power plants do, and in that small portion, we deal with social and environmental costs of impacts to society and the environment. Any thoughts?



The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed.  However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns.  Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution.  Birds fly into the vanes, and there's no practical way to prevent this.  The EPA has more or less written off dead eagles and other endangered birds; quite a callous view of conservationism.  Does this excuse the problems with fossil fuels? No, but those are constantly worked on by power companies installing smoke stack scrubber and filters, and the constant agency (of all types) monitoring of nuclear power systems.

Right now, fossil and nuclear power sources are by and large contained within finite areas, and their impact has been long studied  and acted upon by the companies themselves, or through government regulation.  People are comfortable around fossil power, not as much nuclear (although imminently safe).

One of the things I learned with the Three Mile Island incident, was that the operators there did not believe what their instruments were telling them, thereby creating a man-made problem.

I'm not naive to believe that any power solution doesn't have its assets and liabilities, but the panic caused by those wanting immediate conversion to "eco-friendly" solutions seem content with the crushing cost of those conversions, and little known real benefits.

Folks generally know little of the "war" between Tesla and Edison over power generation.  The money spent by Edison's allies for DC power spared little in the way of outlandish propaganda to push a system which could not scale upward as demand grew.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil.  In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Dec 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> If an internal combustion engine was developed that got 100 miles on highway would electric vehicles still be viable? The other thing that's the elephant in the room, who pays for the roads all vehicles drive on? Currently fuel taxes pay for road construction, if your electric vehicle doesn't buy gas, you're not paying your fair share. The current fuel tax is at odds with energy efficiency as mileage goes up, taxes collected go down.
> 
> Astro brought up a valid point, in that energy conservation is a multifaceted plan. We built our house to be energy efficient and to utilize passive solar heating in the winter. There are no moving parts to passive, nothing to break, and nothing to wear out.





In Europe many companies claim there cars can do 100 miles per litre, 3 litres to one US gallon. but the technology used benefits the environment, re climate change, but is bad for people in respect to breathable air quality .


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 12, 2017)

pendennis said:


> The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed.  However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns.  Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. ...


I recall visiting a friend in Indiana.  They live in the middle of nowhere but cornfields.  You can hear the hum of the distant turbines all day and all night long.  If you do a quick google that hum is a growing problem if turbines are near residences.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Dec 12, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil.  In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.




Trump isn't doing long term with policies in respect to coal and oil.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Dec 12, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> pendennis said:
> 
> 
> > The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed.  However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns.  Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. ...
> ...




Im not some enviro freak I'm simply saying that there are down side and downsides.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 12, 2017)

petrochemist said:


> If I pop down to the local beach, I can see over 120 turbines on a clear day. IMO they improve the view as there's very little out there to see (or photograph) without them!
> On one of the occasions when there was something else worth photographing I think they added to the image too:
> 
> 
> ...



Depends on where you want the wind farm.  Obviously, the Kennedy's have enough clout so their view of the Atlantic remains unspoiled:
Kennedys, Kochs help kill planned wind farm off Cape Cod


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

pendennis said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > First, thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your finance perspective on the topic, something that's usually not discussed.
> ...


Windmills do not create much noise pollution.  Generally, wind turbines are no closer than 300 yards/meters to homes. At that distance a wind turbine generates about 43 decibels. Most home refrigerators generate about 40 decibels and the average air conditioner creates 45 decibels. At 500 yards/meters the sound drops to 38 decibels which is below the average background noise which ranges from 40 - 45 decibels.  Under those circumstances the wind turbine noise is completely masked by the background.

You mentioned a lack of studies/vetting regarding renewable energy.
_
"I'm a skeptic about any "systems" which tout advantages without proper vetting. "Green" energy is one of those which purports to be a panacea, replacing fossil-based and nuclear energy, but has to be propped up using tax credits and government subsidies. Not one of the statements I've read has done an end-to-end fully costed analysis." _

Just because you haven't read any reports/publications does not mean they do not exist. In California, the Environmental Impact Reports, CEQA court cases, public hearings, energy studies sponsored and researched by governments, private sector and universities can possibly filled the entire Library of Congress.  As an environmental consultant and a former environmental commissioner for the City of Los Angeles, I have seen, read and personally contributed to plenty.

PS- The wind turbines in California generally exceed that 300 yards/meters distance.  Have you ever been up close to a wind turbine?


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

BananaRepublic said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil.  In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.
> ...


Which is why many U.S. States are taking the lead both individually and collectively.  California government officials have entertained and visited the EU and China and together they are formulating green initiatives and moving forward with international designs/plans/requirements/regulations/et al ... sans Trump.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> pendennis said:
> 
> 
> > The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed.  However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns.  Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. ...
> ...


In rural areas, the background noise is about 30 decibels, which requires about a miles of distance from a wind turbine not to be heard.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

BananaRepublic said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > pendennis said:
> ...


One man's poison is another man's meat. Nothing is perfect. I personally don't have a big problem with nuclear. For me, apart from the waste (which is a serious concern) ... when something goes wrong with a nuke plant, all hell can break loose. How much hell can be generated if a wind turbine farm goes down?


----------



## JonA_CT (Dec 12, 2017)

Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...

These arguments are always interesting to me as I live maybe 100 yards from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and have done so for the last 10 years. I simply do not recognize that trains pass anymore unless its a freighter that literally shakes the house.

People who visit do notice them, and they always ask how we cope. I tell them the same thing. I think sometimes outsiders to situations assume that things are a bigger deal than they really are.

A couple of obvious caveats that I will admit to:

A. We chose to live there. I suppose people who live in rural areas of Indiana aren't necessarily signing up for these renewable resources, and I don't know if they are directly benefiting their community.

B. We live in a city, so background noise levels are obviously higher. But we don't notice the ambulances that come screaming by (as we are a block from the hospital) or the helicopters coming to land or even really the music from the bar down the street either.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

You remind me of the guy who lives next to a track that ran a train by at 3:00 a.m. every day. One day the train didn't run and the guy woke up saying "What was that!"


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

JonA_CT said:


> Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...
> 
> These arguments are always interesting to me as I live maybe 100 yards from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and have done so for the last 10 years. I simply do not recognize that trains pass anymore unless its a freighter that literally shakes the house.
> 
> ...


I don't think "You'll get used to it ..." is a viable mitigation action.


----------



## waday (Dec 12, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> You remind me of the guy who lives next to a track that ran a train by at 3:00 a.m. every day. One day the train didn't run and the guy woke up saying "What was that!"


----------



## JonA_CT (Dec 12, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...
> ...



Of course not. 

But...sometimes I think people prevent progress on good ideas because something in their lives might change as a result. 

Maybe they could save on their attorney’s fees and adapt.


----------



## waday (Dec 12, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...
> ...


One time I heard an engineer try to positive spin a power plant reducing nearby property values as a good thing, because their taxes might go down as a result of their reduced property value. So, it'll be cheaper for them.

People are a-holes.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

There is a community to the south of LAX called El Segundo. Gary and family were looking at a very nice home which was priced far lower than what one would think such a home would cost.  Gary was speaking to the real estate agent when a jet roared overhead.  I yelled to the agent a remark about the noise and the agent looked at me and said "What jet?"


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 12, 2017)

waday said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > JonA_CT said:
> ...


I have a beef when people move next to an airport, then complain about the noise.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 12, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil.  In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.


You got most of it all wrong.  Government did not invent the automobile, telephone, airplane, computer, fracking, film, film and digital cameras, Google Maps, Nikon 850, etc.  These were invented by private individuals and companies who competed against established methodologies and technologies.  The only place government advanced technologies for the most part is in arms like tanks, battleships, missiles, and jet fighters because individuals and companies don't need them and wouldn't buy them. 

Most of the money spent by government on 'green" energy goes to companies that gave campaign donations to politicians.  Also, tax credits and rebates for green energy were reimbursed to people like Trump and other real estate developers who construct buildings.  Other credits go to rich individuals who buy expensive cars like the Tesla, unaffordable by most people.  It's the poorer people who can't afford these vehicles and pay for it with their taxes although the benefits go to the rich.

Government misallocates wealth by playing favorites instead of allowing free markets to operate.  It's free markets that create wealth.  Government only dissipates it.  Look at Venezuela.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 12, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > pendennis said:
> ...


The sound pressure level is not the ultimate measurement, though.  There are also the concerns with the low level sound frequency, measured in Hz.  There's enough anecdotal evidence that this phenomenon needs further serious study.  The graph also ignores the total exposure time to those listed noises.  Lawn mowers, vacuum cleaners, etc., do not run at those levels 24/7 (not that wind generators do, either).

Exposure to sound at levels above 85 dB will eventually cause hearing loss, and is painful when exposed long enough at one time.  The human body never "gets used" to constant noise levels, no matter how "small".  People learn to live with it, but it's not healthy.

PS - If my refrigerator ran at 40 dB, I'd be buying a new one.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 14, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil.  In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.
> ...


I never said the government invented any of those things.

To clarify, the government is attempting to get green technology established by offering incentives. Private sector tax incentives are provided to all. Private sector incentives are designed to make new green technologies as affordable as older cheaper less energy efficient and dirty technologies. All people directly benefit from clean air, clean water and clean soil.

Please provide concrete examples and data supporting your unsubstantiated claims and I will either agree or I will disagree and post examples and data to substantiate my disagreement(s).


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 14, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> I never said the government invented any of those things.
> 
> To clarify, the government is attempting to get green technology established by offering incentives. Private sector tax incentives are provided to all. Private sector incentives are designed to make new green technologies as affordable as older cheaper less energy efficient and dirty technologies. All people directly benefit from clean air, clean water and clean soil.
> 
> Please provide concrete examples and data supporting your unsubstantiated claims and I will either agree or I will disagree and post examples and data to substantiate my disagreement(s).



You just contradicted your post#55 where you said: _

"I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil.* In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents*_*"*

The part bolded by me shows that you think government creates new technologies and it's up to government to push private business to create products.  My argument against that is the concrete examples of the telephone, cameras, film, airplanes, and so many other products developed by private industry against the established products of their times.  Anyone who has flown in a plane, driven a car or used the phone doesn't need any more proof.


----------



## limr (Dec 15, 2017)

I am surprised no one has mentioned another hidden environmental cost of electric cars: nickel mining for the batteries as well as the toxicity of piles of dead batteries.


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 15, 2017)

limr said:


> I am surprised no one has mentiones another hidden environmental cost of electric cars: nickel mining for the batteries as well as the toxicity of piles of dead batteries.


The toxicity of the batteries been mentioned at least a couple of times, none specifically mentioned nickel because it's only used in a fraction of the battery options.


----------



## Overread (Dec 15, 2017)

Alan I think the key with green developments is not that private companies need help bringing new products to the market; but that many green alternatives are often more expensive/complex/require new developments/investment et c... Ergo they are often a more involved process, so most private companies are more inclined to go with cheaper/more affordable alternatives. 

There's also the aspect that going green isn't actually adding new things to society but changing how we deliver current services/products. So its a more expensive approach going against an already established line of products that deliver the same/more for less cost. This is without considering the costs of changing infrastructures; which all other things being equal is a huge cost for companies on mass production.

So it makes sense that governments would issues grants and the like to encourage the market to flourish or at least allow it to compete so that you get private companies taking it up. The only other option would be the government developing and producing such assets on its own. 


Also don't forget laws and the government have helped loads in the past with regard to new products and inventions.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

There's no doubt that looking for alternative energy sources makes sense. We seriously considered a solar grid when we built our house, but the payback on the system wasn't feasible. We have an excellent spot for a wind unit but unfortunately the "sustained" wind isn't available. Ultimately we did go with a very simple energy efficient home with a passive solar design. One end of the house is two stories of insulated low e glass situated to catch most of the sun travel. In the winter when the sun is lower we get heat (UV) in the summer when the sun is higher it reflects the heat (UV).  So far we have no complaints. Our all electric, utility bill has yet to hit $300 in the heat of summer or cold of winter. 

As I have an abundance of trees available I've seriously considered building a wood gas fired generator, using a conventional 4 cylinder auto engine. Cheap and easy to build, but given that our monthly bill is so reasonable I can't justify even that.

Micro hydro plants for those who have the location, can and do perform great. We almost bought a home site that had a year round spring capable of powering a hydro plant that would have provided 100% of our needs plus extra to be sold, but the property location was just to far from anything.

Coastal locations have another source of energy. Wave action powered generators. No noise, relatively easy to construct. Given the interest in electric vehicles I'm surprised that hydrogen fuel cell technology hasn't moved ahead faster. 
5 Fast Facts about Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

The point to my ramblings is that it doesn't have to be a "one size fits all" mentality.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2017)

limr said:


> I am surprised no one has mentiones another hidden environmental cost of electric cars: nickel mining for the batteries as well as the toxicity of piles of dead batteries.


Any heavy metal mining may have ecological consequences.  That's why there is (hopefully will continue to have) a lot of regulation.  

You may hear of rivers of weird color; especially in China these days where the land and water are poisoned with heavy metals.  
examples ==> China cracks down on heavy metal pollution

and speaking of wind turbines ==> In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Daily Mail Online

This used to be the way in Mexico too when manufacturing shifted to Mexico due to low cost labor and minimal regulation.
example ==> Tijuana's Toxic Waters

battery recycling - well, just watch the History Channel enough and you can see some of the battery recycling, but of course that isn't 100%.  I'd hate to even guess how low a % it is for batteries globally.

I cannot recall which state/river it was out west, but the new gov't recinding/held up regulation which would affected the cost of cleanup for the companies creating waste into the local rivers of other heavy metals.  A river of Red as I recall the last couple years when I read of the ecological impact.  Such as this ==> 230 Colorado mines are leaking heavy metals into state rivers – The Denver Post


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> There's no doubt that looking for alternative energy sources makes sense. We seriously considered a solar grid when we built our house, but the payback on the system wasn't feasible. We have an excellent spot for a wind unit but unfortunately the "sustained" wind isn't available. Ultimately we did go with a very simple energy efficient home with a passive solar design. One end of the house is two stories of insulated low e glass situated to catch most of the sun travel. In the winter when the sun is lower we get heat (UV) in the summer when the sun is higher it reflects the heat (UV).  So far we have no complaints. Our all electric, utility bill has yet to hit $300 in the heat of summer or cold of winter.
> 
> As I have an abundance of trees available I've seriously considered building a wood gas fired generator, using a conventional 4 cylinder auto engine. Cheap and easy to build, but given that our monthly bill is so reasonable I can't justify even that.
> 
> ...


My house is open to the sky on the east, south and  some west.
So I looked into the local electric company who had ads for "free" Solar.  They actually came out to my house trying to sell me their system.  Nice system, but their payback is based on the system, during the day when I'm not home, sending power back onto the grid (which they aren't accepting any more) to lower my monthly costs.  My current electrical costs are sometimes under $30 a month up to $80 in the summer with A/C.   The $20k system had a 20 year payback which they calculated would be the money put back into the grid (except the grid wasn't accepting any new chargeback power).

I didn't go with it.  I wanted battery power too for backup to another hobby.

I've been dabbling in solar and will be expanding my 300w solar panels, which I use marine batteries to maintain a power system for emergencies.  There are times in the area when we lose power.  Granted I probably won't ever have enough battery power to run the A/C, but I will probably be able to run the furnace from time to time, once it's built up enough.  Until then at least a couple LED light bulbs when there's no power.

but once you add up the total cost, maintenance cost, and replacing batteries in a 3-5 year cycles, it's not economical.  It's just a neat hobby.  This to support the AmatuerRadio in case of local municipality emergencies; which actually doesn't take much.  The radios from 20 years ago pale in comparison to the miniturization we have today.  My radio is small by comparison back then.  The antenna system is the thing that can take some power.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

@astroNikon We were at the max point during construction, having already exceeded our budget, but I really wanted to put in a Geothermal HVAC,  http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/17/10-myths-about-geothermal-heating-and-cooling/ in conjunction with a small lake. We may still convert to that in the future. The pay back is pretty attractive.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 15, 2017)

In the mid-1800's, the U.S. government inserted itself into the transcontinental railroad project.  The government chose the two railroad companies to connect "east and west".  The cost overruns were horrendous, land costs outlandish, and the meeting at Promontory Point was a staged event, as the competitors built parallel lines, which never really met.

Compare that to the construction of the Great Northern Railroad, which was privately funded and built.  The owners paid fair prices for land, and still turned a fair profit.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 15, 2017)

Every time someone suggests the government provide incentives to get private industry to do things, I think of a couple of a couple of examples.  

The "oil depletion allowance" is one.  This was an incentive to get oil companies to drill more oil wells and compensate them for loss of production.  The concept was that since wells deplete as the oil is pumped out, Congress granted the big oil companies tax deductions for each barrel pumped.  Of course, when everyone realized that the companies were just going to dig new oil wells anyway, they finally stopped the deduction.  Seems kinda of silly now.  Exxon, Texaco, Sunoco and others loved it and wish for the good ole days.

Another one is the 10% ethanol requirements in gasoline created from growing corn.  The idea was to reduce the need for oil which also burns dirtier.  Of course, the corn growing states pushed the idea as it;s a boon for farmers.  The downsize everyone didn't think of was that the cost for feed that cows and pigs eat goes up raising the cost of food for poorer people and everyone else.  We still have this silly law because the corn states wield a lot of power in Congress.  The law of unintended consequences at work.

Now they offer rich people tax credits to use green energy for Tesla cars and solar panels made by the Chinese paid for by poorer people's taxes  who can't afford these systems.  We really should shut Washington down.  They cause more problems and spend more of our money than they're worth.


----------



## waday (Dec 15, 2017)

limr said:


> I am surprised no one has


I've been trying to stay out of the discussion, because it makes my brain sad. I never understood why certain discussions turn into government bashing. In addition, there are far too many anecdotes in this discussion for my liking.



AlanKlein said:


> We really should shut Washington down. They cause more problems and spend more of our money than they're worth.


While the gov't has done some pretty stupid things, it's also done some pretty great things.

While corporations have done some pretty great things, they've also done some pretty stupid things.

To indicate that problems would be solved by shutting the government down ignores the fact that new problems would arise from having no government.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 15, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I never said the government invented any of those things.
> ...


_"The part bolded by me shows that you think government creates new technologies and it's up to government to push private business to create products."_

It most certainly does not! In no way do I say that government creates new technologies.

But governments do fund new inventions.  I was speaking to engineers working for Rockwell and Litton regarding space exploration.  They stated that a schedule of inventions required to set a man on the Moon was actually calendared into the project timeline.  As in, we need to invent something that does this by June, something that can do that by September.

How about Tang?  How about an atomic bomb? Ad infinitum ... Governments, across the eons and around the world have underwritten the development thereof and directed created new inventions. Are governments the only source of new inventions ... no. But I was not speaking to inventions, I was speaking to government offering incentives in order to make a level monetary playing field between old, established, dirty, less efficient products and new, unestablished, clean, more efficient products.

Tesla, as an example, with the help of government is now able to offer electric vehicles at a significantly lower price making them more attractive and affordable for the middle class ... not just the rich.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> How about Tang? How about an atomic bomb?





Gary A. said:


> Tesla, as an example, with the help of government is now able to offer electric vehicles at a significantly lower price



Not sure I can disagree with you on the Gov. subsidies for research, but at the same time - have you ever tasted Tang??? That stuff is gross? and the atomic bomb??? Not sure that was such a good thing. And Tesla - I'm not sure that an equal amount of investment in established auto makers wouldn't have been a better choice to spend the money. 
Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Course an even better solution would be for Gov. to simply cut the taxes in the first place rather than thinking they are better at choosing where the money should be spent, but that's another story for another time.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > How about Tang? How about an atomic bomb?
> ...


As we seem to addressing the United States government ... with democratically elected representatives ... all the spending of tax dollars can be construed as a direct interpretation of the will of the people. Again, if we are speaking of the United States, like it or not, you cannot separate government spending from the voter. An argument can be made that Tang was a step towards the International Space Station, (albeit a very small step).  If you speak to WWII veterans, soldiers and Marines who were deployed to attack Japan ... I suspect nearly every single one of them and their families think that the invention of 'the bomb' was a blessing. (During WWII, "Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.) Additionally, the government investment into an atomic weapon was the foundation for all later nuclear technologies, including energy and medicine, et al.

(While I am not a proponent of atomic weapons ... and I am a proponent of a nuclear weapon free world ... I do think that nuclear technology, if used responsibly can be a very good think.)


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > How about Tang? How about an atomic bomb?
> ...


Thanks for the link to Tesla.  Reading the article gives some interesting facts.  The incentive to buy that costs the nation's taxpayers $7500 per Tesla car plus an additional $2500 in California.  Meanwhile the typical buyer makes $320,000 a year and is in the top 1% of earners, maybe even higher.  Musk is worth $10 billion mainly at the bequeath of state and federal money paid by gullible taxpayers who've been sold a bill of goods that the rich need an electric sports car to park in one of their three garages in their million dollar homes because it's going to stop global warming and keep the seas from rising.  We're all a bunch of saps.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 15, 2017)

The federal up-to $7500 tax credit for an electric car survives the new tax legislation.  Tesla's Musk is ecstatic.  The seas are saved!
Electric-car tax credit retained in Congressional tax reform bill: report


----------



## waday (Dec 15, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> The federal up-to $7500 tax credit for an electric car survives the new tax legislation.  Tesla's Musk is ecstatic.  The seas are saved!
> Electric-car tax credit retained in Congressional tax reform bill: report


How often have you expressed your disinterest in these programs to your representatives?


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

@Gary A. Being both pragmatic and just a tad on the lazy side, I'm never opposed to things that will make my life easier or better so long as they don't require additional effort on my part.  

As to the Atomic Bomb ultimately saving lives you can't prove or disprove the deaths or lives saved so using  "Modus tollens" you might argue the statement is true, but I have to think the quarter of a million Japanese killed by the bomb or their families might disagree. Having a crazy man in North Korea with nuclear weapons and the capability to hit US soil doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling either.

Yes Nuclear Power is clean while it's making power, but leaves a really "dirty mess". The old saying no such thing as a free lunch applies. I still think the use of renewable, sun, wind, or waves holds a better long term solution.


----------



## terri (Dec 15, 2017)

A few of the comments in this thread are teetering close to political debate, which isn't allowed on the main forum.    Some of you may well feel these points warrant digging deeper in that regard, but that means they should be taken to the Subscriber's Forum.


----------



## limr (Dec 15, 2017)

Okay, we all know that if this continues going off-topic into the realm of the relative merits of government, it's not going to end well. Let's keep the conversation focused on cars and energy and NOT about govermnent.

...and as I was typing, Terri posted essentially the same thing, so now y'all HAVE to listen.


----------



## Designer (Dec 15, 2017)

limr said:


> I am surprised no one has mentioned another hidden environmental cost of electric cars: nickel mining for the batteries as well as the toxicity of piles of dead batteries.


But... I did!  Not in specific terms, but I pointed out that the manufacture and procurement of raw materials is very harmful to the environment.  And to the people who work in those industries.


----------



## Designer (Dec 15, 2017)

waday said:


> To indicate that problems would be solved by shutting the government down ..


Where did that come from?


----------



## Designer (Dec 15, 2017)

The question in the title once more:

_Are electric cars powered by coal-based electricity any benefit?_

I wish to highlight one word: "ANY".

While in theory electric cars recharging from mains power would, in theory, contribute to less harmful emissions than a car using an internal-combustion engine.  In the total picture, we should include calculations of efficiency losses for the electric vehicle, and (as already hashed out) the environmental and fiduciary costs of the storage batteries and related expenses.  I am not aware of any comprehensive study done on that, I'm just wondering out loud if anyone has done it.


----------



## waday (Dec 15, 2017)

Designer said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > To indicate that problems would be solved by shutting the government down ..
> ...


Response to AlanKlein


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

Designer said:


> I am not aware of any comprehensive study done on that, I'm just wondering out loud if anyone has done it.



No one really wants to acknowledge or admit the down side. The real problem though is that it would have to be a  comprehensive study covering a wide variety of topics from economic to environmental. to be relevant.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 15, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...


California pays much much more in Federal taxes than it gets back.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 15, 2017)

pendennis said:


> In the mid-1800's, the U.S. government inserted itself into the transcontinental railroad project.  The government chose the two railroad companies to connect "east and west".  The cost overruns were horrendous, land costs outlandish, and the meeting at Promontory Point was a staged event, as the competitors built parallel lines, which never really met.
> 
> Compare that to the construction of the Great Northern Railroad, which was privately funded and built.  The owners paid fair prices for land, and still turned a fair profit.


I didn't know we were discussing government efficiency  and profit margins. The Federal government doesn't have to make a profit as it can actually create money.

But that doesn't give them license to waste tax dollars and be inefficient.


----------



## limr (Dec 15, 2017)

Enough talk of the government in the public forums. Take it to the Subscribers Forums or leave it alone.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

Going back to the OP's title/question, I don't think you can have a relevant discussion of the question without including the government in that discussion because  Uncle Sams fingers are in every aspect, from the time coal comes out of the ground, to the point you turn the key on in your electric vehicle. The Government is the only common denominator across the board.


Footnote: Sorry Limr we posted back to back. Maybe revise my post to say include Government (as it specifically affects the OP's question)?


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2017)

limr said:


> Okay, we all know that if this continues going off-topic into the realm of the relative merits of government, it's not going to end well. Let's keep the conversation *focused on cars* and energy and NOT about govermnent.
> 
> ...and as I was typing, Terri posted essentially the same thing, so now y'all HAVE to listen.


My car is awesome.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2017)

I also prefer a centralized power generating systems, rather than everyone having to shovel coal into their basement gravity furnaces.  Then the centralized systems have to get more efficient at producing energy per total cost of generation and ecological costs.

Otherwise, we'd all be driving coal/steam driven cars around ...


----------



## limr (Dec 15, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, we all know that if this continues going off-topic into the realm of the relative merits of government, it's not going to end well. Let's keep the conversation *focused on cars* and energy and NOT about govermnent.
> ...



So is mine


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @Gary A. Being both pragmatic and just a tad on the lazy side, I'm never opposed to things that will make my life easier or better so long as they don't require additional effort on my part.
> 
> As to the Atomic Bomb ultimately saving lives you can't prove or disprove the deaths or lives saved so using  "Modus tollens" you might argue the statement is true, but I have to think the quarter of a million Japanese killed by the bomb or their families might disagree. Having a crazy man in North Korea with nuclear weapons and the capability to hit US soil doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling either.
> 
> Yes Nuclear Power is clean while it's making power, but leaves a really "dirty mess". The old saying no such thing as a free lunch applies. I still think the use of renewable, sun, wind, or waves holds a better long term solution.


Oh please, it is not a matter of proving or disproving something that didn't happen ... it is a matter of accurate prediction(s) based upon facts and data.  If you have better data/information which is contrary to:

1) The atomic weapons dropped over Japan did shorten the war;
2) The atomic weapons saved U.S. lives; and
3) The atomic weapons saved Japanese lives.

Then produce it. Generalization with no backup have little to no relevance.

I never said "I" approved of detonating a bomb over Japan. I did want to point out that there is another side.  Personally, I would have given a lot of thought to dropping the first bomb over a relatively inhabited place ... like Tokyo Bay as a demonstration of the weapon's power.

I am quite sure the Japanese who suffer/suffered as a consequence of the bombings may think differently.  Conversely, those who died and wounded at Pearl Harbor and their surviving families should be heard from as well.

In truth, our incendiary bombings of Japanese cities were as deadly as atomic weapons.  On March 10, 1945, we dropped napalm, on Tokyo destroying a fifth of the city and causing the death of 105,400 people.  This single bombing raid was worse than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and on a par with Hiroshima. After Tokyo, 60 more cities were similarly napalmed.  I don't know if using napalm, a chemical weapon, to kill a 100,000 people is any more right ... than using an atomic weapon to kill a 100,000 people.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

@limr and @astroNikon  are we to assume you have electric vehicles. If so how about some real life owners experiences.


----------



## limr (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Going back to the OP's title/question, I don't think you can have a relevant discussion of the question without including the government in that discussion because  Uncle Sams fingers are in every aspect, from the time coal comes out of the ground, to the point you turn the key on in your electric vehicle. The Government is the only common denominator across the board.
> 
> 
> Footnote: Sorry Limr we posted back to back. Maybe revise my post to say include Government (as it specifically affects the OP's question)?



Simulposts are the devil 

I understand that in reality, the issue of government regulation is part of the conversation (though I do believe a discussion of alternate energy sources can be had without talking about details of gov't regulation). However, that conversation is also a mine field. As long as no one gets close to blowing up a mine, it's fine, but there have been a few comments that are steering us back to the hot zone and I'd like to avoid flying body parts


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @limr and @astroNikon  are we to assume you have electric vehicles. If so how about some real life owners experiences.


Hybrid
short trips are awesome




.
.
Though I do have to say, you have to drive like you are driving a hybrid, and know it's limits.  Its not a Tesla Model S.


----------



## limr (Dec 15, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > @Gary A. Being both pragmatic and just a tad on the lazy side, I'm never opposed to things that will make my life easier or better so long as they don't require additional effort on my part.
> ...



We're moving on from this topic.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Oh please, it is not a matter of proving or disproving something that didn't happen .



I wasn't disagreeing with you, I merely stated that your assumption could be accepted as fact by using a line of reasoning which makes assumptions based on things you know are true. Same as the assumption formed on those who were killed by the bombs.

As to the existence/non existence of atomic bombs, I wish they had never been invented, but that's an issue not relevant to the thread.


----------



## limr (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @limr and @astroNikon  are we to assume you have electric vehicles. If so how about some real life owners experiences.



I don't, I just think that my car is awesome.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

@astroNikon that's pretty impressive even if it was only 1.7 miles  How about real life city and road mileage. Maintenance issues, longevity, etc., you know the things that make vehicle ownership such an ordeal


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @astroNikon that's pretty impressive even if it was only 1.7 miles  How about real life city and road mileage. Maintenance issues, longevity, etc., you know the things that make vehicle ownership such an ordeal


Free vehicle pickup.
Free vehicle dropoff.
Free loaner vehicle.
they put new batteries in my car key fob - no charge.
No cost for the last service to check my window and a few other things.
Nice and cushy ride, heated and a/c leather seats, great stereo, moon roof, electric rear trunk and all the fun stuff.
No real maintenance issues at 37k.

Overall though with Highway and City driving I get 40mpg.  Pushing it I'll get 35mpg.
But I'll normally be between 40 and 60mpg average for a full tank of gas.

But I can see where this car would not be very good if you live in hilly areas.  If you are stuck in traffic (I'm not) a lot then it really helps save energy/gas.
edited:  Also, if I have over 400lbs of passengers then the gas engine will be on most of the time.  So weight does matter.  The MKZ uses the same hybrid system found in the CMax which is a smaller, lighter car.  But it uses more regular high performance tires, and is of course a larger and heavier car.

But many of the short trips I'll be all electric.  The battery though is not large enough for extended all battery trips.  The Energi Fusion uses a much larger battery and electric motor.  But those are very expensive vehicles and didn't have the features I wanted.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 15, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> But I can see where this car would not be very good if you live in hilly areas. If you are stuck in traffic (I'm not) a lot then it really helps save energy/gas.



This is what my friend said about the Lexus hybrid she drives


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 16, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> Overall though with Highway and City driving I get 40mpg.  Pushing it I'll get 35mpg.
> But I'll normally be between 40 and 60mpg average for a full tank of gas.
> 
> But I can see where this car would not be very good if you live in hilly areas.  If you are stuck in traffic (I'm not) a lot then it really helps save energy/gas.



I suspected your snapshot showed unusual conditions. Long term I average 56mpg, though if being more gentle on the throttle I have made trips around 100 miles that average over 80mpg. All from my 'highly polluting' turbo diesel estate - which rarely does any city driving.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 16, 2017)

petrochemist said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Overall though with Highway and City driving I get 40mpg.  Pushing it I'll get 35mpg.
> ...


City driving I'll get high avg mpg, even up to 999 if full battery.  So these generation hybrid excel at City driving.   The electric motor and battery though are not powerful enough to keep it going on the highway at speeds unless you really learn to feather the throttle and draft someone or the highway is dead flat, otherwise it's a mix of electric and mostly gas.

Under normal highway driving you are using the engine all the time which by itself gets over 30-35mpg and the electric usually kicks in to "assist".  I get much better mileage not taking the highway which is only about 5-10 minutes longer but speeds are realistically 55 mph and less rather than 70+ mph.  Mileage goes up to 60 mpg without much of a problem; I'm usually the faster of the cars doing the passing rather than being passed.

But if I use heated or a/c'd seat turned or the a/c system on high in general on it draws from the battery too much and the engine kicks on.  This system is from the C-Max so it's over worked in the MKZ.  But I knew all of that.  When I test drove it though I preferred the Mkz hybrid over the same priced regular mkz and fusion hybrid & much higher mpg and $$ Fusion Energi system.

In bad weather I use a Taurus X (19mpg), when I'm bored a Mustang Cobra (9-26mpg) or a Duc will get 30.

This is my normal mpg fast drive home from work not using the highway.  The car excels in mpg in 45-55mph.  From 25-35 the system seems to be a lot of gas engine.  In lower speeds mostly battery.  The tires have a lot to do with it as the mkz tires are not hybrid high mileage tires but more high performance tires.  I suspect if I had the Fusion Hybrid my mileage would be higher



btw, I've always been working on getting the most gas mileage from all my cars from my very first car.  I track all my mileage and gas fillups.  I haven't taken this car on a long trip yet but normally long trips I bring stuff with me like a bicycle or two, or my telescope system, all which are too big for this car.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 16, 2017)

Gee @astroNikon 40 mpg isn't as good as I thought it would be. I average over 150 mpg towing with my F350 diesel. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
Assuming I have a carhauler trailer behind me loaded with 13 smart cars and factoring in the fact they are moving down the road without using any fuel at all. If i wanted to fudge on the weight some I could throw on another one and get over 160


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 16, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @astroNikon that's pretty impressive even if it was only 1.7 miles  How about real life city and road mileage. Maintenance issues, longevity, etc., you know the things that make vehicle ownership such an ordeal


I forgot. 
The electrical engine system is warrantied for 96 months or 100,000 miles. 
The gas engine is warrantied for 48 months or 50,000 miles.
or something like that ...

the system has two MODES.  EV and EV+.  EV+ uses more battery more of the time.  But the car learns your driving patterns and uses EV+ closer to destinations.  A lot of my local driving is repetitious, so I'm in EV+ a lot.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 16, 2017)

How long does the battery last in years before it has to be replaced?  Doesn't its efficiency reduce over time as well?  What does it cost to replace?  What does the cost to replace do to the retained value of the car for resale?  What's the percent of depreciation of the car after 3 years? 5 years? 10 years?


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 16, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> (A) How long does the battery last in years before it has to be replaced?  (B) Doesn't its efficiency reduce over time as well?  (C) What does it cost to replace?  (D) What does the cost to replace do to the retained value of the car for resale?  What's the percent of depreciation of the car after 3 years? 5 years? 10 years?


A. good question because it varies on use and climate you live in and such.  I was never able to determine that as my car design is too new.  It's the second generation of MKZ so can't go by first generation information.
B. yes, as all batteries do.
C. I couldn't get a direct answer on that as it's warrantied for 9 years.  I was researching if I could get a 2nd battery and piggy back it on the other one for a longer EV range but never could get a complete answer.  The car can really only go about 2 miles on full EV without any regeneration during that period (or downhill, braking, etc).
D. it depreciates the same as the regular engine MKZ after 3 and 5 years.  But of course other cars can be completely different.


----------



## The wife! (Dec 18, 2017)

I love my  Hybrid Jeep.


----------

